Website is up:http://www.planetaryresources.com/ Will update OP with info when available.
On the 24th of April, a new company under the name of Planetary Resources was announced at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. They have said it will ensure human prosperity and inject trillions of dollars into the global GDP. It will overlay two critical sectors, space exploration and natural resources (in another words asteroid mining). It has an impressive group of backers, that include Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Aliens director James Cameron, and Microsofts former Chief Software Architect Charles Simonyi. At first they will survey possible asteroid sites, then mine them to be taken back to Earth's orbit/surface. Their launch vehicles will be chartered from other companies (think SpaceX). Repeatedly in the speech and on the website they are touting how they will reduce costs, which I do believe they can do. Here is a rundown with the technology:
There are no roads where we’re headed. But we have a map. Our Philosophy
Planetary Resources’ near-term goals are to dramatically reduce the cost of asteroid exploration. We will combine the best practices of commercial aerospace innovation, operational adaptability, and rapid manufacturing to create robotic explorers that cost an order of magnitude less than current systems. We will control costs by constraining scope and creating simple designs that can be executed by a small, expert team. And although we will hold ourselves to the highest standards and practices, we will aggressively accept mission risk where appropriate.
Our philosophy will allow rapid development of private, commercial interplanetary space exploration. In light of fiscal challenges facing the spaceflight community, innovation in cost and market is as valuable as innovation in capability. Technology
While much of Planetary Resources’ technology is proprietary, our technological approach is driven by a few simple principles to enable innovation in cost. We are incorporating recent innovations in commercial microelectronics, medical devices, and information technology, in ways not traditionally used by robotic spacecraft.
Deep space exploration also presents specific challenges to spacecraft design. Critical to our success are advancements in the fields of collaborative exploration, deep space optical communications, and efficient micro-propulsion. Planetary Resources is actively working in these areas for our own efforts as well as for NASA and the benefit of the greater space science community.
Flexibility in our design, and implementation in a small package, will enable launch opportunities by taking advantage of rideshare with other spacecraft. Arkyd Series 100 - Leo Space Telescope Leo, a commercial space telescope within reach of the private citizen
Leo is the first private space telescope and a stepping-stone to near-Earth asteroids. This space telescope, utilized in low Earth orbit, represents the next milestone on our technology development roadmap.
At Planetary Resources, we are committed to a disciplined approach of fielding systems simple enough to be designed, manufactured, tested and integrated by a small team, yet robust enough to get the job done. Leo will demonstrate that critical capability in Earth orbit.
The resulting capability of Leo, at an unprecedented low price, empowers a new community to intimately participate in space-based remote sensing and the further exploration of the cosmos.
Learn More Arkyd Series 200 - Interceptor Interceptor, a low cost asteroid mission that enables accelerated exploration
Adding propulsion capabilities and additional scientific instrumentation to the Leo Space Telescope enables an Earth-crossing asteroid Interceptor mission. Several undiscovered asteroids are seen for the first time as they routinely cross through Earth’s neighborhood. By hitching a ride with a launched satellite headed for a geostationary orbit, Interceptor will be well positioned to fly-by and collect data on these new targets of opportunity.
Two or more Interceptors can work together as a team to potentially identify, track and fly-by the asteroids that travel between the Earth and our Moon. The closest encounters may result in a planned spacecraft “intercept,” providing the highest-resolution data, similar to how government efforts first explored the Moon with the Ranger missions (1961-65) and later with the Deep Impact mission at Comet 9P/Tempel (2005).
These Interceptor missions will allow Planetary Resources to quickly acquire data on several near-Earth asteroids. Arkyd Series 300 - Rendezvous Prospector Characterizing an asteroid’s value and preparing for mining operations
By augmenting the Interceptor spacecraft with deep space laser communication capability, Planetary Resources can launch the Rendezvous Prospector mission to a more distant asteroid, much further away from Earth. Orbiting the asteroid, the Rendezvous Prospector will collect data on the asteroid’s shape, rotation, density, and surface and sub-surface composition.
Through the use of multiple Rendezvous Prospector spacecraft, Planetary Resources will distribute mission risk across several units and allow for broad based functionality within the cluster of spacecraft.
Rendezvous Prospector also results in the creation and demonstration of a low-cost interplanetary spacecraft capability, of interest to potential customers such as NASA, scientific agencies, or other private exploratory organizations. Asteroid Mining Redefining “natural resources” for the benefit of humanity
Initial space resource development will focus on water-rich asteroids. Water is the essence of life and exists in plentiful supply on asteroids. Access to water and other life-supporting volatiles in space provides hydration, breathable air, radiation shielding and even manufacturing capabilities. Water’s elements, hydrogen and oxygen, can also be used to formulate rocket fuel. Using the resources of space – to explore space – will enable the large-scale exploration of the Solar System.
Recovery and processing of materials in a microgravity environment will occur through significant research and development. Planetary Resources will lead the creation of critical in-situ extraction and processing technologies to provide access to both asteroidal water and metals. When combined with our low-cost deep space explorers, this represents an enabling capability for the sustainable development of space.
Personally, I completely agree with this. I have long believed that humanity as a whole should think about space a hell of a lot more than it currently does and if the governments of the world don't, then private companies such as this one and SpaceX will. As resources dwindle and the population grows, space mining and colonies will become far more important. This could also usher in "space manufacturing" where the robots go, get the resources, then go back to factories built in orbit of the Earth or Moon, to be constructed into the things, because micro-gravity construction in the long run, is a lot cheaper. Something I do wonder though, is how they will reach the asteroids in a timely manner. Will they use current engines, or more advanced options such as ion engines, or maybe even fission powered engines.
Here is a great speech by Neil deGrasse Tyson on the subject of human expansion into space.
Based on the TED talk by Peter H. Diamandis (one of the main people involved in this new company) , I think the rumors are legitimate. http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_on_our_next_giant_leap.html I'm glad, been a big believer in the importance of asteroid mining for years.
Inject trillions of dollars into the world economy? This one corporation will be account for at least 1/60th of the world's GDP in the future? What an outlandish statement and claim.
Yeah, I think trillions of dollars might be a bit of an overstatement by them, but if they have the right technology and aren't complete idiots, then it will change a lot.
On April 20 2012 03:41 The_LiNk wrote: Inject trillions of dollars into the world economy? This one corporation will be account for at least 1/60th of the world's GDP in the future? What an outlandish statement and claim.
It is based on basic facts about the current market value of a single near Earth asteroid. A lot of these resources would be used in space instead of bringing them all back to Earth. This would expand our Earth based economy into space as more people are made able to live and work there. Do some research before you dismiss things based on seeing big numbers. They didn't say trillions in the first years, they said it has the potential to inject trillions, this is its eventual potential and it is completely real.
On April 20 2012 03:41 The_LiNk wrote: Inject trillions of dollars into the world economy? This one corporation will be account for at least 1/60th of the world's GDP in the future? What an outlandish statement and claim.
It is based on basic facts about the current market value of a single near Earth asteroid. A lot of these resources would be used in space instead of bringing them all back to Earth. This would expand our Earth based economy into space as more people are made able to live and work there. Do some research before you dismiss things based on seeing big numbers. They didn't say trillions in the first years, they said it has the potential to inject trillions, this is its eventual potential and it is completely real.
Yeah, this is what I mean, as long as they put the resources to good use to expand into space further, it will hugely boost the world economy.
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
On April 20 2012 03:41 The_LiNk wrote: Inject trillions of dollars into the world economy? This one corporation will be account for at least 1/60th of the world's GDP in the future? What an outlandish statement and claim.
It is based on basic facts about the current market value of a single near Earth asteroid. A lot of these resources would be used in space instead of bringing them all back to Earth. This would expand our Earth based economy into space as more people are made able to live and work there. Do some research before you dismiss things based on seeing big numbers. They didn't say trillions in the first years, they said it has the potential to inject trillions, this is its eventual potential and it is completely real.
Yeah, this is what I mean, as long as they put the resources to good use to expand into space further, it will hugely boost the world economy.
Totally agree. However this isn't economically feasible if they plan on simply returning materials. They can make vastly more money selling the resources to be make into in-space assets, fuels, etc. Simply add the 2000+ USD cost per pound to launch anything to every pound of stuff you mine and you quickly realize why it is worth more up in space.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
The only snags I see to something like this is finding ways to overcome the physiological stresses of long periods of microgravity, and dealing with the dangerous environment that exists outside the Van Allen belts. But it is something we should've been tackling since the mid-70s. People can go on and on about how we have to "fix the problems on Earth first!" but that (frankly) just won't happen. We can expand, or we can all listen to Dr. Malthus chuckling in the background.
On April 20 2012 03:41 The_LiNk wrote: Inject trillions of dollars into the world economy? This one corporation will be account for at least 1/60th of the world's GDP in the future? What an outlandish statement and claim.
It is based on basic facts about the current market value of a single near Earth asteroid. A lot of these resources would be used in space instead of bringing them all back to Earth. This would expand our Earth based economy into space as more people are made able to live and work there. Do some research before you dismiss things based on seeing big numbers. They didn't say trillions in the first years, they said it has the potential to inject trillions, this is its eventual potential and it is completely real.
Yeah, this is what I mean, as long as they put the resources to good use to expand into space further, it will hugely boost the world economy.
Totally agree. However this isn't economically feasible if they plan on simply returning materials. They can make vastly more money selling the resources to be make into in-space assets, fuels, etc. Simply add the 2000+ USD cost per pound to launch anything to every pound of stuff you mine and you quickly realize why it is worth more up in space.
I believe I read somewhere that they were trying to bring the cost down to 100 USD per pound, though that seems unlikely. I just wish that I could live in the generation who will grow up living on the moon or even Mars and so on. I have always found space incredibly fascinating, especially exploration of it.
I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
Cheap in-space materials from asteroid mining could fix our energy problems by way of large solar power satellites which can collect sunlight 24/7/365 at far greater efficiencies than those bound to Earth.
On April 20 2012 03:53 felisconcolori wrote: The only snags I see to something like this is finding ways to overcome the physiological stresses of long periods of microgravity, and dealing with the dangerous environment that exists outside the Van Allen belts. But it is something we should've been tackling since the mid-70s. People can go on and on about how we have to "fix the problems on Earth first!" but that (frankly) just won't happen. We can expand, or we can all listen to Dr. Malthus chuckling in the background.
(Sadly, I don't think we can FFE.)
One of the ways to fix muscle degradation and other effects is to use centrifugal force to keep you planted on the floor. There some other ideas here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
On April 20 2012 03:53 felisconcolori wrote: The only snags I see to something like this is finding ways to overcome the physiological stresses of long periods of microgravity, and dealing with the dangerous environment that exists outside the Van Allen belts. But it is something we should've been tackling since the mid-70s. People can go on and on about how we have to "fix the problems on Earth first!" but that (frankly) just won't happen. We can expand, or we can all listen to Dr. Malthus chuckling in the background.
(Sadly, I don't think we can FFE.)
Well, if they would mine Iron from asteroids and wanted to smelt them in space, the space forge would have to be first before the expansion...
While cool, my dad pointed out that right now we have major issues as to whether we should use gas or electricity or geothermal energy for things like heating our homes, etc. The concerns over those choices are huge today, yet the economic differences between them are miniscule relative to what it would take to go mine asteroids on the other side of Mars. Additionally, when you're spending trillions and trillions of dollars to do just that, some 3rd world country is going to say, "hey, we have all the natural resources you could ever want, and we'll sell them to you for a tiny fraction of that!" So unless James Cameron is planning to reveal that AVATAR was a documentary and he has efficient interstellar travel, it seems very implausable. Perhaps they will be doing something else? Or just trying to develop the technology?
Or the investors are all so rich and nerdy they just want to try something cool? Because while we are still facing crisis(plural?) on our own planet on which type of energy source is best, most economic, and environmentally friendly, it seems near impossible to start going Sci-fi.
That being said, I would love for this to happen. In fact, if this is the case I would definitely want to pursue a career with them. I want nothing more than humanity to be able to reach further into space, but i'm doubtful, ya know?
On April 20 2012 04:07 corose wrote: While cool, my dad pointed out that right now we have major issues as to whether we should use gas or electricity or geothermal energy for things like heating our homes, etc. The concerns over those choices are huge today, yet the economic differences between them are miniscule relative to what it would take to go mine asteroids on the other side of Mars. Additionally, when you're spending trillions and trillions of dollars to do just that, some 3rd world country is going to say, "hey, we have all the natural resources you could ever want, and we'll sell them to you for a tiny fraction of that!" So unless James Cameron is planning to reveal that AVATAR was a documentary and he has efficient interstellar travel, it seems very implausable. Perhaps they will be doing something else? Or just trying to develop the technology?
Or the investors are all so rich and nerdy they just want to try something cool? Because while we are still facing crisis(plural?) on our own planet on which type of energy source is best, most economic, and environmentally friendly, it seems near impossible to start going Sci-fi.
That being said, I would love for this to happen. In fact, if this is the case I would definitely want to pursue a career with them. I want nothing more than humanity to be able to reach further into space, but i'm doubtful, ya know?
Oh to be born a couple thousand years later.
Whoever said anything about going to other star systems? This one has thousands of asteroids that could all be accessed easily. And investing in space will solve our energy problems, because even from the moon, enormous amount of power can be harnessed using solar panels at the poles. We have to go into space. It is necessary to our survival as the human race. Otherwise we'll suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs.
On April 20 2012 04:07 corose wrote: While cool, my dad pointed out that right now we have major issues as to whether we should use gas or electricity or geothermal energy for things like heating our homes, etc. The concerns over those choices are huge today, yet the economic differences between them are miniscule relative to what it would take to go mine asteroids on the other side of Mars. Additionally, when you're spending trillions and trillions of dollars to do just that, some 3rd world country is going to say, "hey, we have all the natural resources you could ever want, and we'll sell them to you for a tiny fraction of that!" So unless James Cameron is planning to reveal that AVATAR was a documentary and he has efficient interstellar travel, it seems very implausable. Perhaps they will be doing something else? Or just trying to develop the technology?
Or the investors are all so rich and nerdy they just want to try something cool? Because while we are still facing crisis(plural?) on our own planet on which type of energy source is best, most economic, and environmentally friendly, it seems near impossible to start going Sci-fi.
That being said, I would love for this to happen. In fact, if this is the case I would definitely want to pursue a career with them. I want nothing more than humanity to be able to reach further into space, but i'm doubtful, ya know?
Oh to be born a couple thousand years later.
Asteroids are very rich in precious heavy metals; resources does not automatically equate to energy, although I'm assuming that's what they've set their future goals on. Once we have enough rare metals and we start heavy development into the materials science, then maybe interstellar travel will be more viable.
On April 20 2012 04:07 corose wrote: While cool, my dad pointed out that right now we have major issues as to whether we should use gas or electricity or geothermal energy for things like heating our homes, etc. The concerns over those choices are huge today, yet the economic differences between them are miniscule relative to what it would take to go mine asteroids on the other side of Mars. Additionally, when you're spending trillions and trillions of dollars to do just that, some 3rd world country is going to say, "hey, we have all the natural resources you could ever want, and we'll sell them to you for a tiny fraction of that!" So unless James Cameron is planning to reveal that AVATAR was a documentary and he has efficient interstellar travel, it seems very implausable. Perhaps they will be doing something else? Or just trying to develop the technology?
Or the investors are all so rich and nerdy they just want to try something cool? Because while we are still facing crisis(plural?) on our own planet on which type of energy source is best, most economic, and environmentally friendly, it seems near impossible to start going Sci-fi.
That being said, I would love for this to happen. In fact, if this is the case I would definitely want to pursue a career with them. I want nothing more than humanity to be able to reach further into space, but i'm doubtful, ya know?
Oh to be born a couple thousand years later.
*Near-Earth Asteroids are easier to get to than the moon. *3rd World countries don't have trillions in resources, nor are those resources in space. *Resources mined in space have a unique value because they are in-fact allready in space and thus don't have to be launched there from Earth. *There is no more environmentally friendly solution to the world's power needs than space-based solar power made from in-space resources. So if that is your goal, this is the best solution. *This isn't scifi, the money has simply never been available from private hands in the past in order to fund it. When the money was there we went to the moon when we were still using slide rules.
With all that said, I hope everything works out as well and am glad you hope so also. Just trying to clear up what seems to be general confusion a lot of people have, not intending to be confrontational.
On April 20 2012 03:42 kollin wrote: Yeah, I think trillions of dollars might be a bit of an overstatement by them, but if they have the right technology and aren't complete idiots, then it will change a lot.
I think it's safe to say none of these guys are idiots. In fact they seem to be anything but just that.
On April 20 2012 03:42 kollin wrote: Yeah, I think trillions of dollars might be a bit of an overstatement by them, but if they have the right technology and aren't complete idiots, then it will change a lot.
I think it's safe to say none of these guys are idiots. In fact they seem to be anything but just that.
I hope this is true. It would be so awesome.
Oh I never said they were idiots, I mean if they are intelligent in their choices with what they do with the money and materials.
On April 20 2012 04:42 Ostby wrote: I have a theory. They could bring an asteroid to earth orbit, make a mining/research/fueling station on it.
Interesting idea, though it would be incredibly costly. They would either have to push it which would use an enormous amount of energy, or get a sufficiently big space ship that it gets pulled into the space ships orbit, which is more effort than its worth.
Sounds very interesting, can't wait to hear the announcement. If not asteroid mining, it might be something like Helium 3 mining from the moon for development of nuclear fusion.
On April 20 2012 04:47 Bartuc wrote: Sounds very interesting, can't wait to hear the announcement. If not asteroid mining, it might be something like Helium 3 mining from the moon for development of nuclear fusion.
I just hope I can catch the streamed conference, I want to hear their timeline. Makes me wonder if they've already invested into fields of technology in an effort to facilitate this launch.
On April 20 2012 04:50 Shanedon wrote: I just hope I can catch the streamed conference, I want to hear their timeline. Makes me wonder if they've already invested into fields of technology in an effort to facilitate this launch.
I imagine at first they will get companies such as SpaceX to actually launch into space, but the rest of it seems technically feasible. I'm assuming they are going to use robots, so they probably have a cargo robot, a prospecting robot in larger fields and some robots that actually do the mining.
Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
On April 20 2012 04:59 jmack wrote: Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
But you see that is ridiculously hard. And every decade we spend trying to fix those things permanently is another decade where the population continues to grow and the earths resources continue to get used. It is an endless cycle, that will not end well. I do believe we should try and fix those things, but if a private company wants to back asteroid mining which will help many of our current problems, then I don't see the problem.
I was googling around on asteroid mining and read this:
One NASA report estimates that the mineral wealth of the asteroids in the asteroid belt might exceed $100 billion for each of the six billion people on Earth.
One fully mined asteroid could be worth from 150-300 billion++ so I'm not surprised this company is making large claims for the distant future. Nations have been researching asteroid mining for awhile as far as I understand
I am all for this. This will be a much more productive way to invest resources than into pointless foreign wars all over the world or worthless stock market speculation.
The issues with anything in space, is that your body was made to handle (through billions of years of evolution) 1 G of pressure at all times through gravity... Yet you will be handling MUCH MUCH less, and thus your body will weaken drastically, this is very common with people who fly on the international space station.
On April 20 2012 04:59 jmack wrote: Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
But you see that is ridiculously hard. And every decade we spend trying to fix those things permanently is another decade where the population continues to grow and the earths resources continue to get used. It is an endless cycle, that will not end well. I do believe we should try and fix those things, but if a private company wants to back asteroid mining which will help many of our current problems, then I don't see the problem.
Another way to look at it is that people said the same thing about exploring the oceans and searching for undiscovered lands for exploitation and habitation hundreds of years ago.
On April 20 2012 05:30 NeMeSiS3 wrote: The issues with anything in space, is that your body was made to handle (through billions of years of evolution) 1 G of pressure at all times through gravity... Yet you will be handling MUCH MUCH less, and thus your body will weaken drastically, this is very common with people who fly on the international space station.
On the last page I linked to a Wikipedia page about artificial gravity and I'm sure surfing around you could find more sources. Basically the best way at the moment is the astronauts are in a centrifuge which keeps them at 1G. I also read somewhere that a spacesuit that has tiny weights over it could increase your weight sufficiently in low gravity, so there wouldn't be a difference.
On April 20 2012 05:30 NeMeSiS3 wrote: The issues with anything in space, is that your body was made to handle (through billions of years of evolution) 1 G of pressure at all times through gravity... Yet you will be handling MUCH MUCH less, and thus your body will weaken drastically, this is very common with people who fly on the international space station.
That is quite a bit easier to fix when you can make larger rotating habitats to induce artificial gravity due to being able to build from cheap in-space gathered resources rather than launch every little piece expensively from Earth's surface.
I'm hoping this is true. I love space and I think its the right direction; we need to focus more on science and space for the future of our kind. Its just unfortunate that most politicians would rather spend their money elsewhere.
Of course we need to be thinking about space more. Of course we will be needing to start extraterrestrial mining soon. But now? The technology isn't there yet. You can inject as much cash as you want into a project, but I don't think it's going to make any of our inventors or scientists smarter. If this is a long-term project, though, by all means, go ahead. The founders and contributors will most likely be very poor individuals by the time anything comes out of this, but at least their sacrifice will insure humanity's survival.
On April 20 2012 05:37 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Of course we need to be thinking about space more. Of course we will be needing to start extraterrestrial mining soon. But now? The technology isn't there yet. You can inject as much cash as you want into a project, but I don't think it's going to make any of our inventors or scientists smarter. If this is a long-term project, though, by all means, go ahead. The founders and contributors will most likely be very poor individuals by the time anything comes out of this, but at least their sacrifice will insure humanity's survival.
Technology is so close to being there. It's definitely not impossible that within 10 years the will be mining in space. In 20 years these private companies might even set up colonies. Saying it won't happen is not the right way to think about it. You have to remember these people are some of the richest people on earth(and soon to out of earth :D).
Some day, the platinum, cobalt and other valuable elements from asteroids may even be returned to Earth for profit. At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than 20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
Obviously, that is not factoring the costs of getting there and mining the asteroid, but nonetheless, the trillions of dollars claim is not that far fetched. Considering how little of the asteroid belt we have actually mapped out and the insane amount of wealth we have already found, I would say Cameron and company are definitely moving in the right direction. I can't wait to hear the full announcement.
On April 20 2012 05:37 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Of course we need to be thinking about space more. Of course we will be needing to start extraterrestrial mining soon. But now? The technology isn't there yet. You can inject as much cash as you want into a project, but I don't think it's going to make any of our inventors or scientists smarter. If this is a long-term project, though, by all means, go ahead. The founders and contributors will most likely be very poor individuals by the time anything comes out of this, but at least their sacrifice will insure humanity's survival.
It's of course a long term project. The tech isn't here yet, and that's why it's worth looking into. Because that technology+scientific knowledge will be useful right here on Earth as well.
I get the outlook that some have "well let's deal with our problems here first." But this thinking is a bit flawed. Consider how much technology became mainstream as a result of discoveries made during the NASA golden age. Also consider how many discoveries came as a result of a few generations of people who were motivated by a new frontier to go into science and technology in the first place. That's the stuff that's driving the economy. Lastly, I feel like the poster above me is right. I'm sure some thought that exploring the oceans was also not of much use. But we found new resources and all kinds of new developments came from that understanding.
I'd be ok with doubling or tripling NASA budget. But this is actually a private venture? I'm all up for that.
This sounds pretty awesome, I'm wondering how they're gonna go about the whole asteroid mining thing though, hopefully they have the money to make it happen.
They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo
I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you?
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote: They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
Most of the problems on earth have technical solutions. We produce enough food to end world hunger easily, yet those living in extreme poverty typically do not have access to infrastructure or distribution of that food. The lack of that infrastructure is not the result of a lack of funds or technology but rather the result of corrupt regimes and war. You can't throw money at those kinds of problems and make them go away.
Compared to solving the problems caused by human wickedness and frailty, expanding into space is much more cost effective.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo
I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you?
What's stopping him is what's stopping most potentially world-changing initiatives: 1.) Lack of capital 2.) Lack of know-how 3.) Lack of a market.
On April 20 2012 04:42 Ostby wrote: I have a theory. They could bring an asteroid to earth orbit, make a mining/research/fueling station on it.
Interesting idea, though it would be incredibly costly. They would either have to push it which would use an enormous amount of energy, or get a sufficiently big space ship that it gets pulled into the space ships orbit, which is more effort than its worth.
Actually, it just takes a while. You just have to get mass hauler to an asteroid, and for fuel it can just accelerate the asteroid material using a magnetic catapult powered by solar power. It would take awhile obviously, but over a year or two you could move the asteroid into Earth Orbit.
On April 20 2012 05:30 NeMeSiS3 wrote: The issues with anything in space, is that your body was made to handle (through billions of years of evolution) 1 G of pressure at all times through gravity... Yet you will be handling MUCH MUCH less, and thus your body will weaken drastically, this is very common with people who fly on the international space station.
It's only a problem if you want to come back to earth. Right now, of course, most miners will want to return, but in 50 years with a solid infrastructure in space, who says people won't be living there permanently?
Well...this makes me so happy. I can actually look forward to the future now. There's going to be something interesting happening in my lifetime. I'm so thankful to these wonderful people deciding on this space venture! Also I think rather than pulling an asteroid belt to act as a mining platform, its more likely that they would construct a space station from the materials they mine. Yes...it will have a habitation ring, a commercial deck, a science wing, administrative... :D. Aah the future never looked so glorious.
I do hope that problems in Africa, and the middle east are fixed. But you can't throw money at the problem. With time as social awareness grows we'll be thinking less in terms of "our country" vs "their country" and more as our world. Just like the each state operates under the united states of america, I think its only inevitable that a world government is formed. Hopefully its not hopelessly complicated and bureaucratic
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote: They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
And here we have a very good illustration of the problem with the human race
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
On April 20 2012 04:42 Ostby wrote: I have a theory. They could bring an asteroid to earth orbit, make a mining/research/fueling station on it.
Interesting idea, though it would be incredibly costly. They would either have to push it which would use an enormous amount of energy, or get a sufficiently big space ship that it gets pulled into the space ships orbit, which is more effort than its worth.
Actually, it just takes a while. You just have to get mass hauler to an asteroid, and for fuel it can just accelerate the asteroid material using a magnetic catapult powered by solar power. It would take awhile obviously, but over a year or two you could move the asteroid into Earth Orbit.
How about controlled explosions (nuclear) to nudge one into an earth orbit?
Obviously this is not the sort of thing you want to cock up. I think we should stick to artificial satellites for a while.
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote: They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
Most of the problems on earth have technical solutions. We produce enough food to end world hunger easily, yet those living in extreme poverty typically do not have access to infrastructure or distribution of that food. The lack of that infrastructure is not the result of a lack of funds or technology but rather the result of corrupt regimes and war. You can't throw money at those kinds of problems and make them go away.
Compared to solving the problems caused by human wickedness and frailty, expanding into space is much more cost effective.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo
I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you?
What's stopping him is what's stopping most potentially world-changing initiatives: 1.) Lack of capital 2.) Lack of know-how 3.) Lack of a market.
1.) Lack of capital: There is plenty of capital out there. How else do you think people start businesses? This is a barrier, not something stopping him. 2.) Lack of know-how: Something he must acquire to implement his idea. This is a barrier, not something stopping him. 3.) Lack of a market: Then its neither a good idea, nor is it going to be world-changing. Unless of course its market is yet to come, but then the idea is premature. For example, it can be unwise to automate certain processes when labor is cheap. It could be a good idea in the future but for now is simply an inefficient placement of resources.
Do you think he should be given capital, despite not having know how and there not being a market? Let him succeed on his own. Darwinian selection in the market place will determine who has good world changing ideas, and who doesn't.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
On April 20 2012 04:59 jmack wrote: Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote: They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
Most of the problems on earth have technical solutions. We produce enough food to end world hunger easily, yet those living in extreme poverty typically do not have access to infrastructure or distribution of that food. The lack of that infrastructure is not the result of a lack of funds or technology but rather the result of corrupt regimes and war. You can't throw money at those kinds of problems and make them go away.
Compared to solving the problems caused by human wickedness and frailty, expanding into space is much more cost effective.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo
I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you?
What's stopping him is what's stopping most potentially world-changing initiatives: 1.) Lack of capital 2.) Lack of know-how 3.) Lack of a market.
Exactly.. And these technical solutions aren't put into place because the main incentive is profit. It wouldn't be profitable to build an infrastructure in a place where the people have no purchasing power.
On April 20 2012 04:42 Ostby wrote: I have a theory. They could bring an asteroid to earth orbit, make a mining/research/fueling station on it.
Interesting idea, though it would be incredibly costly. They would either have to push it which would use an enormous amount of energy, or get a sufficiently big space ship that it gets pulled into the space ships orbit, which is more effort than its worth.
Actually, it just takes a while. You just have to get mass hauler to an asteroid, and for fuel it can just accelerate the asteroid material using a magnetic catapult powered by solar power. It would take awhile obviously, but over a year or two you could move the asteroid into Earth Orbit.
How about controlled explosions (nuclear) to nudge one into an earth orbit?
Obviously this is not the sort of thing you want to cock up. I think we should stick to artificial satellites for a while.
You can't use a nuke to nudge an asteroid if you plan on mining from it. The metals and other materials would be irradiated for a very long time.
I don't understand all the 'fix the earth first' comments here...this is a private company looking to find a new market. We don't expect other huge companies to stop what they are doing and focus on 'fixing' the earth, why should this one?
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
On April 20 2012 07:05 Xeiph wrote: I don't understand all the 'fix the earth first' comments here...this is a private company looking to find a new market. We don't expect other huge companies to stop what they are doing and focus on 'fixing' the earth, why should this one?
Well Cameron is quoted as saying the company is "to help ensure humanity's prosperity." People are trying to gauge what is actually meant by that statement.
On April 20 2012 07:05 Xeiph wrote: I don't understand all the 'fix the earth first' comments here...this is a private company looking to find a new market. We don't expect other huge companies to stop what they are doing and focus on 'fixing' the earth, why should this one?
This exactly.
On April 20 2012 07:08 Dali. wrote: Well Cameron is quoted as saying the company is "to help ensure humanity's prosperity." People are trying to gauge what is actually meant by that statement.
Helping humanity means what it says, helping humanity... That can be done in more ways than just saving starving people.
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote: They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
Most of the problems on earth have technical solutions. We produce enough food to end world hunger easily, yet those living in extreme poverty typically do not have access to infrastructure or distribution of that food. The lack of that infrastructure is not the result of a lack of funds or technology but rather the result of corrupt regimes and war. You can't throw money at those kinds of problems and make them go away.
Compared to solving the problems caused by human wickedness and frailty, expanding into space is much more cost effective.
On April 20 2012 06:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo
I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you?
What's stopping him is what's stopping most potentially world-changing initiatives: 1.) Lack of capital 2.) Lack of know-how 3.) Lack of a market.
Exactly.. And these technical solutions aren't put into place because the main incentive is profit. It wouldn't be profitable to build an infrastructure in a place where the people have no purchasing power.
How do you explain the unyielding growth and massive foreign investment in third world countries then?
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote: They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
Here's an answer to you and everyone else who is like "why do we spend money up there, when we have problems down here?".
I'm pretty much quoting Neil DeGrasse Tyson here, when I say that:
#1: The return on investment into the frontier of science can take decades. History has shown that it takes 50-80 or even more years from someone discovering stuff that is later down the road the basis for our daily lives. This stuff takes longer than an election period, yes. But it's usefull in the long run.
#2: We don't spend a lot of money "up there". How much do you think, in %, does for example the NASA get from the total US budget? 10%? 5%? ... It is 6/10th of 0.01$ per $ taxes paid. The gouvernments today are reluctant to spend money when it's about the frontier of science and discovery because it won't show up in the next quarterly report.
tl;dr: This project is awesome. We're lucky as hell if some rich people go for this.
On April 20 2012 07:05 Xeiph wrote: I don't understand all the 'fix the earth first' comments here...this is a private company looking to find a new market. We don't expect other huge companies to stop what they are doing and focus on 'fixing' the earth, why should this one?
On April 20 2012 07:08 Dali. wrote: Well Cameron is quoted as saying the company is "to help ensure humanity's prosperity." People are trying to gauge what is actually meant by that statement.
Helping humanity means what it says, helping humanity... That can be done in more ways than just saving starving people.
I think what people are getting at is that there are other ventures which don't require the extreme inconvenience of leaving the planet. Major investments in renewable energies for future energy security seem like better investments to me.
Though considering the amount of money involved, I'm sure there is good reasons behind their focuses, whatever they may be.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote: They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
Most of the problems on earth have technical solutions. We produce enough food to end world hunger easily, yet those living in extreme poverty typically do not have access to infrastructure or distribution of that food. The lack of that infrastructure is not the result of a lack of funds or technology but rather the result of corrupt regimes and war. You can't throw money at those kinds of problems and make them go away.
Compared to solving the problems caused by human wickedness and frailty, expanding into space is much more cost effective.
On April 20 2012 06:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo
I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you?
What's stopping him is what's stopping most potentially world-changing initiatives: 1.) Lack of capital 2.) Lack of know-how 3.) Lack of a market.
Exactly.. And these technical solutions aren't put into place because the main incentive is profit. It wouldn't be profitable to build an infrastructure in a place where the people have no purchasing power.
How do you explain the unyielding growth and massive foreign investment in third world countries then? Derp.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism?
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote: They should fix things on earth first. Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried. More money spent for the wealth of few.
Most of the problems on earth have technical solutions. We produce enough food to end world hunger easily, yet those living in extreme poverty typically do not have access to infrastructure or distribution of that food. The lack of that infrastructure is not the result of a lack of funds or technology but rather the result of corrupt regimes and war. You can't throw money at those kinds of problems and make them go away.
Compared to solving the problems caused by human wickedness and frailty, expanding into space is much more cost effective.
On April 20 2012 06:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo
I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you?
What's stopping him is what's stopping most potentially world-changing initiatives: 1.) Lack of capital 2.) Lack of know-how 3.) Lack of a market.
Exactly.. And these technical solutions aren't put into place because the main incentive is profit. It wouldn't be profitable to build an infrastructure in a place where the people have no purchasing power.
How do you explain the unyielding growth and massive foreign investment in third world countries then? Derp.
Read this and then honestly tell me whether you think the current profit based system can solve these problems in the near future or ever.
Yes, the current profit based system IS solving those problems. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong were all impoverished places 50 years ago. 30 years ago people talked about how terrible the sweat shops there were despite them being a catalyst for growth and prosperity (sweat shops where people voluntarily work that is). China, India, countries in southeast asia, and countries in latin america are undergoing this process today. Lots of wealth is pouring into oil rich countries enabling them to make other investments into infrastructure, education, etc. Restricting people from freely trading with one another inhibits growth, and is simply morally wrong to begin with. When people are allowed to rule over themselves and see to their own future, good things happen. History proves this.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism?
Humanity desperately needs anything to look out for its long term interest, politicians are too shortsighted to look beyond anything apart from their re-election. Hope this grows into something big, like, REALLY big.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism?
Its cute that you think your systems different.
First of all communism never occured anywhere in the world, but I doubt you even know what it is. And that isn't "my system" although if done the right way it would still be better than anything preceding it. When in the world was there ever a moneyless, classless, stateless social system where technology provided for people without a price and life's necessities were common property?
Anyway I am optimistic about this project because the ones involved seem like decent human beings. Hopefully they will initiate a change to a more sustainable infrastructure on a global scale and make space travel accessible to the common man~
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices.
The justification for owning land is mixing your labor with it. If someone establishes a mining operation and begins producing from an asteroid, that asteroid ought to be considered theirs. Saying the asteroid is collectively everyone's is simply a clever and evil way of saying it belongs to the state, and that everyone is a slave that shouldn't be allowed to see towards their own well-being.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices.
The justification for owning land is mixing your labor with it. If someone establishes a mining operation and begins producing from an asteroid, that asteroid ought to be considered theirs. Saying the asteroid is collectively everyone's is simply a clever and evil way of saying it belongs to the state, and that everyone is a slave that shouldn't be allowed to see towards their own well-being.
Funny how most of the labor is done by the so called slaves while the supposed owner takes the big chunk of the pie just because he "owns" it and then proceeds to buy a house that could shelter a small city and costs more than they will make in their lifetime :p
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism?
Its cute that you think your systems different.
First of all communism never occured anywhere in the world, but I doubt you even know what it is. And that isn't "my system" although if done the right way it would still be better than anything preceding it. When in the world was there ever a moneyless, classless, stateless social system where technology provided for people without a price and life's necessities were common property?
You can start a commune bro, what part of free market don't you understand? You live in the only system in which your dream can be fulfilled and you can't stop bashing it. Maybe because you don't have the courage to do it. I keep saying do it and you won't listen.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices.
The justification for owning land is mixing your labor with it. If someone establishes a mining operation and begins producing from an asteroid, that asteroid ought to be considered theirs. Saying the asteroid is collectively everyone's is simply a clever and evil way of saying it belongs to the state, and that everyone is a slave that shouldn't be allowed to see towards their own well-being.
Funny how most of the labor is done by the so called slaves while the supposed owner takes the big chunk of the pie just because he "owns" it and then proceeds to buy a house that could shelter a small city and costs more than they will make in their lifetime :p
Are you suggesting people should not be able to trade their labor? Or that mining should be illegal because not everyone can afford to do it? Or both? Stone age sounds wonderful.
But what actually happens is that there are millions of asteroids, and mine owners compete for laborers by outbidding with higher wages, and compete for consumers by driving down prices. This squeezes profit margins down. Those who are successful at managing their operation and squeezing out efficiency become rich. Why did they become rich? Because they made other people rich. They saved consumers money and paid higher wages than others. This is because its not a zero-sum game. Becoming rich doesn't make others poor. In fact its quite the opposite.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism?
Its cute that you think your systems different.
First of all communism never occured anywhere in the world, but I doubt you even know what it is. And that isn't "my system" although if done the right way it would still be better than anything preceding it. When in the world was there ever a moneyless, classless, stateless social system where technology provided for people without a price and life's necessities were common property?
You can start a commune bro, what part of free market don't you understand? You live in the only system in which your dream can be fulfilled and you can't stop bashing it. Maybe because you don't have the courage to do it. I keep saying do it and you won't listen.
I'm not bashing it, besides the profit system is global not just here.. I'm saying with our current knowledge and technology we can make up for its shortcomings if we can overlook profit for once.
this is pretty badass, this is the sort of shit we need to get our asses into gear and become more than a 1 planet species (kinda helps stop us from dieing off to a stray comet or somesuch)
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices.
The justification for owning land is mixing your labor with it. If someone establishes a mining operation and begins producing from an asteroid, that asteroid ought to be considered theirs. Saying the asteroid is collectively everyone's is simply a clever and evil way of saying it belongs to the state, and that everyone is a slave that shouldn't be allowed to see towards their own well-being.
Funny how most of the labor is done by the so called slaves while the supposed owner takes the big chunk of the pie just because he "owns" it and then proceeds to buy a house that could shelter a small city and costs more than they will make in their lifetime :p
Owners get paid in profits and usually that's a small slice of the pie - not a large one. And owners DO contribute.
The workers are better off than they were beforehand. Owners can't afford to pay 3rd world workers more than a 3rd world wage since 3rd world workers are far, far less productive than 1st world workers.
The problem with asteroid mining is that it is hugely expensive to bring mass back and forth from space to the Earth. This means any gathered resources aren't going to be worth the effort.
That is, unless the gathered resources are used in space, instead of for terrestrial works. But that will take quite a bit of time, and more importantly, capitol.
It seems like asteroid mining is skipping several steps that we haven't undergone yet with regards to space exploration, and not to mention the exploration of our own planet. Who knows what kind of resources could potentially lie at the bottom/under our sea floors.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
Cheap in-space materials from asteroid mining could fix our energy problems by way of large solar power satellites which can collect sunlight 24/7/365 at far greater efficiencies than those bound to Earth.
Smart sir, how do you get that energy back to earth to be used since we don't know how to store energy ? Large power cables of thousands of kilometers going right to space ? Ah.
On April 20 2012 08:48 Flamingo777 wrote: It seems like asteroid mining is skipping several steps that we haven't undergone yet with regards to space exploration, and not to mention the exploration of our own planet. Who knows what kind of resources could potentially lie at the bottom/under our sea floors.
Yes, the bottom of the sea is definitely the best place to industrialize/pollute the hell out of.
But it's definitely skipping steps, an important one being the ability to get crap into space under $100/kg, compared to $10,000 it is now.
On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote: Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
On April 20 2012 04:59 jmack wrote: Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
Most of those problems you point out are unsolvable. When europe conquered america they had a lot of problems, some of those same problems you pointed out, should they have fixed europe first? It was the right choise obviously.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
Cheap in-space materials from asteroid mining could fix our energy problems by way of large solar power satellites which can collect sunlight 24/7/365 at far greater efficiencies than those bound to Earth.
Smart sir, how do you get that energy back to earth to be used since we don't know how to store energy ? Large power cables of thousands of kilometers going right to space ? Ah.
Science looks so simple sometimes :D
You beam it down. Try using Google. I happen to be studying engineering, it is entirely feasible. I wish people like you would spend less time trying to shoot ideas down and more time educating yourself. This topic is filled with depressingly uninformed people spewing the same 4 or 5 complaints I see on every news topic related to science/space on the internet. It is simply frustrating and sad.
On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote: [quote] Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
And yet you are participating. Although you're completely wrong I don't understand how someone who believes the same severely misguided things you do can continue on basking in your wealth while you believe slaves are working and starving for you. Its twisted to be frank. You're either evil or you don't honestly believe these things. There's no other alternative.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
And yet you are participating. Although you're completely wrong I don't understand how someone who believes the same severely misguided things you do can continue on basking in your wealth while you believe slaves are working and starving for you. Its twisted to be frank. You're either evil or you don't honestly believe these things. There's no other alternative.
By all means educate me on why I am wrong about my conception of the system. You present an air of knowledge and confidence in your position. I will gladly listen.
I am participating, but I make a concerted effort to minimise my negative impact as best I can. Everyday there are new things ways to negate the impact of my consumption. I am, without doubt, a constantly failing case and will probably never live up to my ideals, but I am trying.
On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote: [quote]
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
And yet you are participating. Although you're completely wrong I don't understand how someone who believes the same severely misguided things you do can continue on basking in your wealth while you believe slaves are working and starving for you. Its twisted to be frank. You're either evil or you don't honestly believe these things. There's no other alternative.
By all means educate me on why I am wrong about my conception of the system. You present an air of knowledge and confidence in your position. I will gladly listen.
I am participating, but I make a concerted effort to minimise my negative impact as best I can. Everyday there are new things ways to negate the impact of my consumption. I am, without doubt, a constantly failing case and will probably never live up to my ideals, but I am trying.
The good thing about the market system is that you can choose who to support though. For instance you can buy "fair trade" coffee and other edibles, which operates under a system where the farmers are given a liveable wage by cooperatives that they work for.
You can also buy from environmentally friendly companies, or ones that don't have their electonics manufactured by companies in china with very low safety/human rights standards (i.e. Foxconn, which incidentally Apple tacitly supports as was shown by an article in the new york times if I remember correctly).
The market itself isn't inherently evil. It will bend to the consumer; if consumers are informed and choose to buy from environmentally/socially responsible companies, then their business models would change. In practise this is really difficult because people are kind of lazy; but if you want to make the world a better place you've got to be an activist and try to get a movement started. That's how fair trade became as large as it is today
edit: Its even better today because access to information is ubiquitous, and penetrates nearly every company. Its a lot harder to get away with things today than it used to be; social awareness is a really powerful force that is dramatically changing the market IMO.
On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote: [quote] Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com
This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries?
Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
And yet you are participating. Although you're completely wrong I don't understand how someone who believes the same severely misguided things you do can continue on basking in your wealth while you believe slaves are working and starving for you. Its twisted to be frank. You're either evil or you don't honestly believe these things. There's no other alternative.
By all means educate me on why I am wrong about my conception of the system. You present an air of knowledge and confidence in your position. I will gladly listen.
I am participating, but I make a concerted effort to minimise my negative impact as best I can. Everyday there are new things ways to negate the impact of my consumption. I am, without doubt, a constantly failing case and will probably never live up to my ideals, but I am trying.
The good thing about the market system is that you can choose who to support though. For instance you can buy "fair trade" coffee and other edibles, which operates under a system where the farmers are given a liveable wage by cooperatives that they work for.
You can also buy from environmentally friendly companies, or ones that don't have their electonics manufactured by companies in china with very low safety/human rights standards (i.e. Foxconn, which incidentally Apple tacitly supports as was shown by an article in the new york times if I remember correctly).
The market itself isn't inherently evil. It will bend to the consumer; if consumers are informed and choose to buy from environmentally/socially responsible companies, then their business models would change. In practise this is really difficult because people are kind of lazy; but if you want to make the world a better place you've got to be an activist and try to get a movement started. That's how fair trade became as large as it is today
edit: Its even better today because access to information is ubiquitous, and penetrates nearly every company. Its a lot harder to get away with things today than it used to be; social awareness is a really powerful force that is dramatically changing the market IMO.
I agree with you. But I feel that this idyllic view of the market is about as impractical or unreachable as the easily dismissed as egalitarian utopias. Relying on the bulk of consumers to make ethical choices when the benefits of 'unethical' practice save them money and the negative consequences are invisible is a tall order indeed.
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money.
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com
I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion.
Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish.
I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion.
Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish.
Could you quit derailing the thread and go debate your weird philosophy in another one?
This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries?
Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases?
I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries?
Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases?
I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right?
Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing.
Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration!
This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries?
Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases?
I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right?
Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing.
Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration!
The obvious answer is to stop growing the population, which is very difficult.
Indeed I agree with the rest of what you said. However it seems like outerspace resource acquisition is very difficult to sustain. I would advocate spending in more renewable sources. Of course, considering those associated with the project, there is a good chance they will have a pretty amazing plan in place.
Someone from UK saying there's a conference in Seattle that will "inject trillions of dollars into the GDP." O.o
2 different countries = specify which GDP. I know it's the US GDP because I looked it up, but summarizing the article just to make someone look up what you mean isn't extremely effective :/
But, on point, I'd love to see some space rock mining in the future.
This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries?
Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases?
I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right?
Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing.
Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration!
The obvious answer is to stop growing the population, which is very difficult.
Indeed I agree with the rest of what you said. However it seems like outerspace resource acquisition is very likely to sustain with consistency. I would advocate spending in more renewable sources. Of course, considering those associated with the project, there is a good chance they will have a pretty amazing plan in place.
I agree stunting the growth of the population would be ideal, but I do not see a foreseeable way for this to happen in developing nations. :/
Did you mean that outer space resources will not sustain with consistency (EDIT: nvm you fixed it)? I think this will be true for at least the next 100 years, but after that I think technology has a good chance of profiting. I think that our investment in space could pay off in unexpected ways. I also agree that we should put more money into renewable resources.
Honestly, I think the key is this: several good ways to spend money seem to be "fixing problems on earth", "investing in space", "investing in renewable energy," etc. But all of these have a limit as to when more investment and money is just not worth it. The key is to invest an amount which give the most "bang for the buck" so to speak!
This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries?
Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases?
I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right?
Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing.
Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration!
The obvious answer is to stop growing the population, which is very difficult.
Indeed I agree with the rest of what you said. However it seems like outerspace resource acquisition is very likely to sustain with consistency. I would advocate spending in more renewable sources. Of course, considering those associated with the project, there is a good chance they will have a pretty amazing plan in place.
I agree stunting the growth of the population would be ideal, but I do not see a foreseeable way for this to happen in developing nations. :/
Did you mean that outer space resources will not sustain with consistency? I think this will be true for at least the next 100 years, but after that I think technology has a good chance of profiting. I think that our investment in space could pay off in unexpected ways. I also agree that we should put more money into renewable resources.
Honestly, I think the key is this: several good ways to spend money seem to be "fixing problems on earth", "investing in space", "investing in renewable energy," etc. But all of these have a limit as to when more investment and money is just not worth it. The key is to invest an amount which give the most "bang for the buck" so to speak!
Ahh yes you are correct. A silly mistake of mine ^^
I feel that, in the case of renewable energies, there is realistically no true state of diminishing return as alluded to in the final section of your post. Upkeep and maintenance aside (which perhaps do need to be accounted for), since the fuel of a renewable is essentially, in human terms, infinite, then it is always going to be useful and of non-marginal returns. I don't feel the same way about outerspace resource collection, but then again what would I know.
This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries?
Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases?
I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right?
Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing.
Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration!
The obvious answer is to stop growing the population, which is very difficult.
Indeed I agree with the rest of what you said. However it seems like outerspace resource acquisition is very likely to sustain with consistency. I would advocate spending in more renewable sources. Of course, considering those associated with the project, there is a good chance they will have a pretty amazing plan in place.
I agree stunting the growth of the population would be ideal, but I do not see a foreseeable way for this to happen in developing nations. :/
Did you mean that outer space resources will not sustain with consistency? I think this will be true for at least the next 100 years, but after that I think technology has a good chance of profiting. I think that our investment in space could pay off in unexpected ways. I also agree that we should put more money into renewable resources.
Honestly, I think the key is this: several good ways to spend money seem to be "fixing problems on earth", "investing in space", "investing in renewable energy," etc. But all of these have a limit as to when more investment and money is just not worth it. The key is to invest an amount which give the most "bang for the buck" so to speak!
Ahh yes you are correct. A silly mistake of mine ^^
I feel that, in the case of renewable energies, there is realistically no true state of diminishing return as alluded to in the final section of your post. Upkeep and maintenance aside (which perhaps do need to be accounted for), since the fuel of a renewable is essentially, in human terms, infinite, then it is always going to be useful and of non-marginal returns. I don't feel the same way about outerspace resource collection, but then again what would I know.
Well, I am not an expert (so I may be wrong), but I think with certain types of energy maintenance is such a cost and hassle that it is unreasonable. I think geothermal is the example. The temperatures corrode the metals in geothermal pumps quickly. I think the main problem is the high initial cost of these renewable sources. Yes, wind and solar power is great, but we cannot possible pay for everything to be powered by them. I am not sure if there is enough land! ^^
Expertise is not a issue on TL. Most of us are simply concerned individuals discussing our opinion! Now, I admit that I am a bit biased towards space (as I am employed in the sciences). But I feel that some of the indirect inventions due to space exploration (improved computing, more efficient combustion processes, medical advances, improvements in aircraft design, and the inspiration of future generations to learn) are reason enough to abandon a cost/benefit analysis and just say go for it! But even so, some of these improvements are saving significant amounts of money compared to the opportunity cost -- (the next best alternative). I think that neglecting research in these areas is detrimental and will inhibit future discoveries that have the potential to be just as effective, but we should still not focus too much in one area. What do they say... everything in moderation, nothing in excess.
On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote: [quote]
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you!
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com
I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion.
Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish.
you're being scorned because you're acting like a bleeding heart.. you have everything at your fingertips yet you're biting the hand that feeds you in favor of communism which would sooner fist you than feed you. talk to people who lived in moscow while the USSR was at war in afghanistan about the lines to get a measly piece of bread, then try to tell me 'hyper-consumerism' is such a bad thing
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com
I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion.
Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish.
you're being scorned because you're acting like a bleeding heart.. you have everything at your fingertips yet you're biting the hand that feeds you in favor of communism which would sooner fist you than feed you. talk to people who lived in moscow while the USSR was at war in afghanistan about the lines to get a measly piece of bread, then try to tell me 'hyper-consumerism' is such a bad thing
I never argued in favour of communism. My posts have extolled the many virtues of the market and am forever grateful its provisions. I simply want to see the wonderful life I have been gifted available to everyone: free from all the ills of poverty. Next time I'll make things clearer Mr. McCarthy.
Notice I said hyperconsumption not hyperconsumerism. Hyperconsumerism is fine by me provided there are tangible benefits to the consumer and it doesn't not place a heavy strain on the resources of the planet. Since we currently live upon the back of a finite set of resources, we ought to avoid consuming them for marginal returns, and invest them in ensuring energy security.
For someone with a writer's icon, you don't do very much reading.
I just did a few calcs based on numbers given in wikipedia...
The largest known M-type asteroid is estimated to hold enough iron/nickel (1.7*10^19kg) in it to sustain our current iron/nickel usage (2 billion tonnes/year) for 8,500,000 years... 8.5 MILLION years of mining at todays rate of consumption.
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com
I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion.
Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish.
you're being scorned because you're acting like a bleeding heart.. you have everything at your fingertips yet you're biting the hand that feeds you in favor of communism which would sooner fist you than feed you. talk to people who lived in moscow while the USSR was at war in afghanistan about the lines to get a measly piece of bread, then try to tell me 'hyper-consumerism' is such a bad thing
Here are a few quotes I read somewhere, summing up communism really nicely. Now, I favor a resource-based economy, but nonetheless it is beneficial to understand this system which has been misunderstood by many to this day:
The USSR was state-capitalist. Their economy was state-run and involved money. There's no modern example of a true communist economy.
The economies of those authoritarian regimes used money and were run by the state. It's called state capitalism. True communism would involve neither a state (let alone a political party) nor money. Its economy would be run by each voluntary member of the community with no authoritarian coercion from a minority.
The early 20th century wasn't ready for a real communist enterprise, especially technology-wise. Hence the failure. The situation is quite different today.
Many things that were unavailable at the time of Lenin are today available. We have advanced computers, the internet, satellites, 3D printers, etc. The likes of Creative Commons are the mark of people's awareness of common ownership. We now have far better bases for collective decisions, scientific resource management, etc.
In an environment of finite resources such as this planet, capitalism with its consumerist culture is unsustainable. It doesn't ensure the continuation of production and people's welfare of being. A shift is inevitable. The real question is not whether common ownership is possible but how to bring about the change peacefully.
On April 20 2012 12:49 KnT wrote: I just did a few calcs based on numbers given in wikipedia...
The largest known M-type asteroid is estimated to hold enough iron/nickel (1.7*10^19kg) in it to sustain our current iron/nickel usage (2 billion tonnes/year) for 8,500,000 years... 8.5 MILLION years of mining at todays rate of consumption.
Seems kinda worth the investment in my mind
Its not a question of 'if there is energy/resources' its a question of 'how do we acquire it'.
For example:
"The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year."
And yet we're still heading toward a potential energy crisis in the next 15-30 years.
That's what the point of this company is no? They've identified that there is almost infinite potential for energy/resources there, now they're going to be working on the "how to we aquire it?" issue
Didn't science and technology boost the US and most developed economies tremendously? Yes, jobs are lost due to mechanization. But a large part of modernization is about retooling. Science and engineering drive future economies.
On April 20 2012 07:22 amazingxkcd wrote: It sounds cool, but there's this little skeptic inside of me that says "Illuminati's grand plan to take over all of us"!.
Wow this is so awesome if it's true! I'm really excited as i've been thinking and hoping for more investments in space exploration.
Mining asteroids for profit won't happen for at least 50 years, because of the costs, and it just won't be worth transporting everything back to earth. But let's stop thinking about immediate profit, that's the whole idea, we need to do stuff that will bring the next generation closer to our dreams as a child.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
This is just so true. Everything (prosperity, economy, research, education, medicine etc) depends first of all on energy. We can make everybody wealthy and healthy, we can stabilize population and save our environment, soils, oceans and climate if we only get enough clean sustainable energy. Until then scaling up space travel or even increasing space exploration is too energy intensive.
I don't think that doomers are right that there will be a massive human die off and civilization collapse in a couple of decades. That is quite unlikely unless we start a nuclear war. But it is certainly possible that our quality of life will start gradually degrading quite soon, as getting fossil fuels becomes less energy efficient and more expensive (it's already happening with oil as oil from tar sands, oil shales and sea bed is much harder to extract then conventional oil; coal and gas will follow some time later, meanwhile ruining our environment).
Just think about it: US as well as Southern Europe would have zero debt if oil was as cheap as 10 years ago. Get enough sustainable clean energy - and all problems from debt to enemployment, from pollution to poverty are automatically fixed. Then we can go and mine those asteroids.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
This is just so true. Everything (prosperity, economy, research, education, medicine etc) depends first of all on energy. We can make everybody wealthy and healthy, we can stabilize population and save our environment, soils, oceans and climate if we only get enough clean sustainable energy. Until then scaling up space travel or even increasing space exploration is too energy intensive.
I don't think that doomers are right that there will be a massive human die off and civilization collapse in a couple of decades. That is quite unlikely unless we start a nuclear war. But it is certainly possible that our quality of life will start gradually degrading quite soon, as getting fossil fuels becomes less energy efficient and more expensive (it's already happening with oil as oil from tar sands, oil shales and sea bed is much harder to extract then conventional oil; coal and gas will follow some time later, meanwhile ruining our environment).
Just think about it: US as well as Southern Europe would have zero debt if oil was as cheap as 10 years ago. Get enough sustainable clean energy - and all problems from debt to enemployment, from pollution to poverty are automatically fixed. Then we can go and mine those asteroids.
What? Source?
Sustainable energy will fix unemployment, poverty and debt? How?
too much hype. Our technology is wayyyy too limited at this point. The most advanced rockets that we have are not fast enough or efficient enough. From a business standpoint, the cost of bringing all those resources >>>>>>>>>> the revenue from selling all those resources - nobody would venture to do something like this. The only thing we can do is try to advance our technology as fast as we can!!
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
This is just so true. Everything (prosperity, economy, research, education, medicine etc) depends first of all on energy. We can make everybody wealthy and healthy, we can stabilize population and save our environment, soils, oceans and climate if we only get enough clean sustainable energy. Until then scaling up space travel or even increasing space exploration is too energy intensive.
I don't think that doomers are right that there will be a massive human die off and civilization collapse in a couple of decades. That is quite unlikely unless we start a nuclear war. But it is certainly possible that our quality of life will start gradually degrading quite soon, as getting fossil fuels becomes less energy efficient and more expensive (it's already happening with oil as oil from tar sands, oil shales and sea bed is much harder to extract then conventional oil; coal and gas will follow some time later, meanwhile ruining our environment).
Just think about it: US as well as Southern Europe would have zero debt if oil was as cheap as 10 years ago. Get enough sustainable clean energy - and all problems from debt to enemployment, from pollution to poverty are automatically fixed. Then we can go and mine those asteroids.
What? Source?
Sustainable energy will fix unemployment, poverty and debt? How?
Well, summ up how much extra US has paid for oil imports during the last 10 years above 2002 prices plus a part of military expenses (Afganistan, Iraq, air carriers) to secure oil flow from Middle East. You may say that US would have had huge military and wars regardless of oil, but to me it seems that oil is one of the major reasons. Anyway, for Italy and for a few other European countries you can just directly sum up oil import costs minus oil imports at 2002 prices to arrive at the numbers close to their national debts: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html
As for energy extremely strongly correlating with economy and quality of life, look up this paper: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Davidson.pdf Here it is important to mention that you should have not only sustainable energy, but also enough of it. It may not fix all problems in itself (if you decide to start wars with your excess energy), but withough enough energy those problems can't be fixed.
On April 20 2012 23:50 white_horse wrote: too much hype. Our technology is wayyyy too limited at this point. The most advanced rockets that we have are not fast enough or efficient enough. From a business standpoint, the cost of bringing all those resources >>>>>>>>>> the revenue from selling all those resources - nobody would venture to do something like this. The only thing we can do is try to advance our technology as fast as we can!!
You need to stop thinking about immediate profit and think about the long term. As one poster said, this might not immediately yield enormous amounts of profit, but over the long term, for our children's generation, for the people who will need these extra resources, this will be incredible.
On April 20 2012 23:50 white_horse wrote: too much hype. Our technology is wayyyy too limited at this point. The most advanced rockets that we have are not fast enough or efficient enough. From a business standpoint, the cost of bringing all those resources >>>>>>>>>> the revenue from selling all those resources - nobody would venture to do something like this. The only thing we can do is try to advance our technology as fast as we can!!
True, the initial cost is huge, but once it's established, the rewards are a lot higher. I see it like expanding in BW/SC2, you spend a lot of money so that you get more stuff later. Sure, for the moment it might look like a bad decision because we have less money for other stuff like defending our base but if we stay on 1 base, eventually we run out of resources and that is even worse.
The resources on asteroids are like gold minerals, there is so much of them that we could coat the earth in a meter thick layer of iron and still have enough left to build the NCC-1701-A.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
This is just so true. Everything (prosperity, economy, research, education, medicine etc) depends first of all on energy. We can make everybody wealthy and healthy, we can stabilize population and save our environment, soils, oceans and climate if we only get enough clean sustainable energy. Until then scaling up space travel or even increasing space exploration is too energy intensive.
I don't think that doomers are right that there will be a massive human die off and civilization collapse in a couple of decades. That is quite unlikely unless we start a nuclear war. But it is certainly possible that our quality of life will start gradually degrading quite soon, as getting fossil fuels becomes less energy efficient and more expensive (it's already happening with oil as oil from tar sands, oil shales and sea bed is much harder to extract then conventional oil; coal and gas will follow some time later, meanwhile ruining our environment).
Just think about it: US as well as Southern Europe would have zero debt if oil was as cheap as 10 years ago. Get enough sustainable clean energy - and all problems from debt to enemployment, from pollution to poverty are automatically fixed. Then we can go and mine those asteroids.
What? Source?
Sustainable energy will fix unemployment, poverty and debt? How?
Well, summ up how much extra US has paid for oil imports during the last 10 years above 2002 prices plus military expenses (Afganistan, Iraq, air carriers) to secure oil flow from Middle East. You may say that US would have huge military and wars regardless of oil, but to me it seems that oil is on of the major reasons. Anyway, for Italy and for a few other European countries you can just directly sum up oil imports costs minus oil imports at 2002 prices to arrive at their national debts: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483541a.html
That is not related to the countries debt. What you're saying is that the people in that country love to eat pineapple. In fact, they love to eat it so much that you keep carrying them into the country but you don't make your people pay for it even if the price rises. You even take loans to keep shoving them into your peoples mouths!
And then you claim it's the pineapples fault that you had to make that debt, hell, you even had to pump up the military budget so you can secure vast fields of pineapples for your people - ALL WITHOUT CHARGING THEM FOR IT.
........
So all the oil that the US or southern european countries bought evaporated and was not sold, that's why they're in debt. Why exactly are there countries who have less national debt despite not exactly eating less pineapples?
As for the paper it says "A country which has more energy for everyone has a higher standard of life" - that is a LOT different from saying "Using renewable energy sources will fix unemployment, poverty and debt". It doesn't matter where that energy comes from in that equation. What however DOES matter when it comes to securing the future of the non-renewable energies, here I'm bashing some western countries with e.g. Germany at the front, are countries who shut down e.g. very secure nuclear reactors just to then buy energy from countries with less safe ones or, even worse, who run mostly gas/oil/coal plants.
On April 20 2012 23:50 white_horse wrote: too much hype. Our technology is wayyyy too limited at this point. The most advanced rockets that we have are not fast enough or efficient enough. From a business standpoint, the cost of bringing all those resources >>>>>>>>>> the revenue from selling all those resources - nobody would venture to do something like this. The only thing we can do is try to advance our technology as fast as we can!!
You need to stop thinking about immediate profit and think about the long term. As one poster said, this might not immediately yield enormous amounts of profit, but over the long term, for our children's generation, for the people who will need these extra resources, this will be incredible.
Not just the resources, but the technologies themselves. Almost all discoveries made at the frontier of science are almost useless for the next few years after their discovery. Computers are based on what was discovered in the 1920s. Electricity was a toy when it was discovered. 80 years later it was everywhere.
I can't recall the exact quote, but when it was displayed for the first time that moving a wire around can cause an instrument to move a little bit, the inventor was asked "And THIS is what we are funding? What use does this toy have for the british empire?" - his reponse was: "I have no idea what use it will have in the future, but I'm sure you're going to tax it."
Most people underestimate the time-delay between the first discoveries and the practical use of those later down the road. :S
On April 20 2012 23:50 white_horse wrote: too much hype. Our technology is wayyyy too limited at this point. The most advanced rockets that we have are not fast enough or efficient enough. From a business standpoint, the cost of bringing all those resources >>>>>>>>>> the revenue from selling all those resources - nobody would venture to do something like this. The only thing we can do is try to advance our technology as fast as we can!!
You need to stop thinking about immediate profit and think about the long term. As one poster said, this might not immediately yield enormous amounts of profit, but over the long term, for our children's generation, for the people who will need these extra resources, this will be incredible.
More like your grandchildren's grandchildren after a catastrophic event that wiped out everything. What 'extra resources' would they need in the first place. There is more than sufficient amount of resources on this planet, no matter how you put it. I mean your children will most likely see thermal solar energy systems that can provide the entire world population of energy by the time they are in their '50s or something. There are already very competitive businesses running nowadays solely on selling resources by recycling on its own. In addition, houses have already been built which completly exist out of garbage and waste, able to witstand heavy earthquakes and are fully self-sufficient in terms of water and energy.
And then you support some company which will fly to outer space to provide us resources? If only one of those billionaire backers would support projects like research on energy/recycling and architecture, then you could actually make a difference which you might (if lucky) live long enough to witness.
On April 20 2012 23:50 white_horse wrote: too much hype. Our technology is wayyyy too limited at this point. The most advanced rockets that we have are not fast enough or efficient enough. From a business standpoint, the cost of bringing all those resources >>>>>>>>>> the revenue from selling all those resources - nobody would venture to do something like this. The only thing we can do is try to advance our technology as fast as we can!!
You need to stop thinking about immediate profit and think about the long term. As one poster said, this might not immediately yield enormous amounts of profit, but over the long term, for our children's generation, for the people who will need these extra resources, this will be incredible.
More like your grandchildren's grandchildren after a catastrophic event that wiped out everything. What 'extra resources' would they need in the first place. There is more than sufficient amount of resources on this planet, no matter how you put it. I mean your children will most likely see thermal solar energy systems that can provide the entire world population of energy by the time they are in their '50s or something. There are already very competitive businesses running nowadays solely on selling resources by recycling on its own. In addition, houses have already been built which completly exist out of garbage and waste, able to witstand heavy earthquakes and are fully self-sufficient in terms of water and energy.
And then you support some company which will fly to outer space to provide us resources? If only one of those billionaire backers would support projects like mentioned before, then you could actually make a difference which you might (if lucky) actual witness.
So you are saying humanity should not go and mine the enormous enormous amounts of resources in space because we might not need them immediately? You have to remember that these resources never have to be sent back to earth. They can be used in the construction of factories and colonies in space, both of which are beneficial to humanity as a whole.
On April 20 2012 23:50 white_horse wrote: too much hype. Our technology is wayyyy too limited at this point. The most advanced rockets that we have are not fast enough or efficient enough. From a business standpoint, the cost of bringing all those resources >>>>>>>>>> the revenue from selling all those resources - nobody would venture to do something like this. The only thing we can do is try to advance our technology as fast as we can!!
You need to stop thinking about immediate profit and think about the long term. As one poster said, this might not immediately yield enormous amounts of profit, but over the long term, for our children's generation, for the people who will need these extra resources, this will be incredible.
More like your grandchildren's grandchildren after a catastrophic event that wiped out everything. What 'extra resources' would they need in the first place. There is more than sufficient amount of resources on this planet, no matter how you put it. I mean your children will most likely see thermal solar energy systems that can provide the entire world population of energy by the time they are in their '50s or something. There are already very competitive businesses running nowadays solely on selling resources by recycling on its own. In addition, houses have already been built which completly exist out of garbage and waste, able to witstand heavy earthquakes and are fully self-sufficient in terms of water and energy.
And then you support some company which will fly to outer space to provide us resources? If only one of those billionaire backers would support projects like mentioned before, then you could actually make a difference which you might (if lucky) actual witness.
So you are saying humanity should not go and mine the enormous enormous amounts of resources in space because we might not need them immediately? You have to remember that these resources never have to be sent back to earth. They can be used in the construction of factories and colonies in space, both of which are beneficial to humanity as a whole.
No Im saying that we do not need them at all to keep human life sustainable on earth. If you want to invest in space exploration and discovering new useful resources, then by all means go ahead.If man can somehow colonize space, that is awesome. But stating that we will need to invest in it to save/spare the lifes of the our next generations is blatantly wrong.
On April 20 2012 23:50 white_horse wrote: too much hype. Our technology is wayyyy too limited at this point. The most advanced rockets that we have are not fast enough or efficient enough. From a business standpoint, the cost of bringing all those resources >>>>>>>>>> the revenue from selling all those resources - nobody would venture to do something like this. The only thing we can do is try to advance our technology as fast as we can!!
You need to stop thinking about immediate profit and think about the long term. As one poster said, this might not immediately yield enormous amounts of profit, but over the long term, for our children's generation, for the people who will need these extra resources, this will be incredible.
More like your grandchildren's grandchildren after a catastrophic event that wiped out everything. What 'extra resources' would they need in the first place. There is more than sufficient amount of resources on this planet, no matter how you put it. I mean your children will most likely see thermal solar energy systems that can provide the entire world population of energy by the time they are in their '50s or something. There are already very competitive businesses running nowadays solely on selling resources by recycling on its own. In addition, houses have already been built which completly exist out of garbage and waste, able to witstand heavy earthquakes and are fully self-sufficient in terms of water and energy.
And then you support some company which will fly to outer space to provide us resources? If only one of those billionaire backers would support projects like mentioned before, then you could actually make a difference which you might (if lucky) actual witness.
So you are saying humanity should not go and mine the enormous enormous amounts of resources in space because we might not need them immediately? You have to remember that these resources never have to be sent back to earth. They can be used in the construction of factories and colonies in space, both of which are beneficial to humanity as a whole.
No Im saying that we do not need them at all to keep human life sustainable on earth. If you want to invest in space exploration and discovering new useful resources, then by all means go ahead.If man can somehow colonize space, that is awesome. But stating that we will need to invest in it to save/spare the lifes of the our next generations is blatantly wrong.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
This is just so true. Everything (prosperity, economy, research, education, medicine etc) depends first of all on energy. We can make everybody wealthy and healthy, we can stabilize population and save our environment, soils, oceans and climate if we only get enough clean sustainable energy. Until then scaling up space travel or even increasing space exploration is too energy intensive.
I don't think that doomers are right that there will be a massive human die off and civilization collapse in a couple of decades. That is quite unlikely unless we start a nuclear war. But it is certainly possible that our quality of life will start gradually degrading quite soon, as getting fossil fuels becomes less energy efficient and more expensive (it's already happening with oil as oil from tar sands, oil shales and sea bed is much harder to extract then conventional oil; coal and gas will follow some time later, meanwhile ruining our environment).
Just think about it: US as well as Southern Europe would have zero debt if oil was as cheap as 10 years ago. Get enough sustainable clean energy - and all problems from debt to enemployment, from pollution to poverty are automatically fixed. Then we can go and mine those asteroids.
What? Source?
Sustainable energy will fix unemployment, poverty and debt? How?
Well, summ up how much extra US has paid for oil imports during the last 10 years above 2002 prices plus military expenses (Afganistan, Iraq, air carriers) to secure oil flow from Middle East. You may say that US would have huge military and wars regardless of oil, but to me it seems that oil is on of the major reasons. Anyway, for Italy and for a few other European countries you can just directly sum up oil imports costs minus oil imports at 2002 prices to arrive at their national debts: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483541a.html
That is not related to the countries debt. What you're saying is that the people in that country love to eat pineapple. In fact, they love to eat it so much that you keep carrying them into the country but you don't make your people pay for it even if the price rises. You even take loans to keep shoving them into your peoples mouths!
And then you claim it's the pineapples fault that you had to make that debt, hell, you even had to pump up the military budget so you can secure vast fields of pineapples for your people - ALL WITHOUT CHARGING THEM FOR IT.
........
So all the oil that the US or southern european countries bought evaporated and was not sold, that's why they're in debt. Why exactly are there countries who have less national debt despite not exactly eating less pineapples?
As for the paper it says "A country which has more energy for everyone has a higher standard of life" - that is a LOT different from saying "Using renewable energy sources will fix unemployment, poverty and debt". It doesn't matter where that energy comes from in that equation. What however DOES matter when it comes to securing the future of the non-renewable energies, here I'm bashing some western countries with e.g. Germany at the front, are countries who shut down e.g. very secure nuclear reactors just to then buy energy from countries with less safe ones or, even worse, who run mostly gas/oil/coal plants.
I am sorry, probably I didn't express myself correctly. I agree with you, energy itself doesn't always solve problems, but you can't solve problems without enough energy. It also seems that with declining availability of very cheap fossil fuels (we still have plenty, they are just gradually getting harder to get and more expensive beginning with oil) many countries will have less energy or at least will have to pay more for it. I also think that nuclear is one of the best sustainable and clean forms of energy (once you consider breeder reactors), much less intermittent than wind or solar, no idea why Germany pulled out of nuclear.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Are you seriously going to bring NASA's budget into this? NASA gets less than 1% of the American budget. And to stop world hunger (which the governments of the world should be doing) you can't just pay money and have the problem go away. Think how many of the starving countries have ruthless dictators as their leaders. Governments should solve the people's problems, private companies should whatever the hell they like, even more so if it's beneficial to humanity.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
First of all, why is it that they should spend their money on world hunger ? Just because you apparently don't mind to spend their money on it don't mean they should.
Second of all. It ain't that easy. You can't just throw ~750 million USD at Africa and expect results. There are people working in Africa and other places to solve hunger, but as long as the place is corrupt it won't be that easy.
Why is it that we have to focus 100% on world hunger and shouldn't be allowed to go into space or do other things that interest us ?
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Are you seriously going to bring NASA's budget into this? NASA gets less than 1% of the American budget. And to stop world hunger (which the governments of the world should be doing) you can't just pay money and have the problem go away. Think how many of the starving countries have ruthless dictators as their leaders. Governments should solve the people's problems, private companies should whatever the hell they like, even more so if it's beneficial to humanity.
Lol, Im using the NASA budget to show you that your praised company is not likely to yield any results because of its low fraction. Not discussing its fraction of Federal budget. Next, world hunger is an example of an issue which has more effective and direct results of the same use of money. The oppertunity cost of this project is pityful. Finally, look at the ted presentation. The presentator actually points out that you can.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
First of all, why is it that they should spend their money on world hunger ? Just because you apparently don't mind to spend their money on it don't mean they should.
Second of all. It ain't that easy. You can't just throw ~750 million USD at Africa and expect results. There are people working in Africa and other places to solve hunger, but as long as the place is corrupt it won't be that easy.
Why is it that we have to focus 100% on world hunger and shouldn't be allowed to go into space or do other things that interest us ?
Like mentioned, its an example to show the oppertunity cost of the billions of this interesting enterprise. Never stating world hunger is the ultimate plague of humanity and that its our nr.1 priority.
Secondly, check the video. This not your average stoner hippy praising world peace and other idealism,.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Are you seriously going to bring NASA's budget into this? NASA gets less than 1% of the American budget. And to stop world hunger (which the governments of the world should be doing) you can't just pay money and have the problem go away. Think how many of the starving countries have ruthless dictators as their leaders. Governments should solve the people's problems, private companies should whatever the hell they like, even more so if it's beneficial to humanity.
Lol, Im using the NASA budget to show you that your praised company is not likely to yield any results because of its low fraction. Not discussing its fraction of Federal budget. Next, world hunger is an example of an issue which has more effective and direct results of the same use of money. The oppertunity cost of this project is pityful. Finally, look at the ted presentation. The presentator actually points out that you can.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
First of all, why is it that they should spend their money on world hunger ? Just because you apparently don't mind to spend their money on it don't mean they should.
Second of all. It ain't that easy. You can't just throw ~750 million USD at Africa and expect results. There are people working in Africa and other places to solve hunger, but as long as the place is corrupt it won't be that easy.
Why is it that we have to focus 100% on world hunger and shouldn't be allowed to go into space or do other things that interest us ?
Like mentioned, its an example to show the oppertunity cost of the billions of this interesting enterprise. Never stating world hunger is the ultimate plague of humanity and that its our nr.1 priority.
Secondly, check the video. This not your average stoner hippy praising world peace and other idealism,.
But NASA isn't concentrating on one project and it's priorities don't change every 4 years. This is why Planetary Resources has the potential to become successful.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Are you seriously going to bring NASA's budget into this? NASA gets less than 1% of the American budget. And to stop world hunger (which the governments of the world should be doing) you can't just pay money and have the problem go away. Think how many of the starving countries have ruthless dictators as their leaders. Governments should solve the people's problems, private companies should whatever the hell they like, even more so if it's beneficial to humanity.
Lol, Im using the NASA budget to show you that your praised company is not likely to yield any results because of its low fraction. Not discussing its fraction of Federal budget. Next, world hunger is an example of an issue which has more effective and direct results of the same use of money. The oppertunity cost of this project is pityful. Finally, look at the ted presentation. The presentator actually points out that you can.
On April 21 2012 00:48 Ramong wrote:
On April 21 2012 00:41 Trollk wrote:
On April 21 2012 00:28 kollin wrote:
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
First of all, why is it that they should spend their money on world hunger ? Just because you apparently don't mind to spend their money on it don't mean they should.
Second of all. It ain't that easy. You can't just throw ~750 million USD at Africa and expect results. There are people working in Africa and other places to solve hunger, but as long as the place is corrupt it won't be that easy.
Why is it that we have to focus 100% on world hunger and shouldn't be allowed to go into space or do other things that interest us ?
Like mentioned, its an example to show the oppertunity cost of the billions of this interesting enterprise. Never stating world hunger is the ultimate plague of humanity and that its our nr.1 priority.
Secondly, check the video. This not your average stoner hippy praising world peace and other idealism,.
But NASA isn't concentrating on one project and it's priorities don't change every 4 years. This is why Planetary Resources has the potential to become successful.
Every enterprise has the potential to be succesful, I will not deny that And of course, anybody is allowed to do with his money as he/she pleases (as long as it are legal matters). Just saying that to me its seems unlikely that a private project is going to outcompete a government backed research institute as NASA when it comes to space exploration and its high initial costs. But that is my personal view.
This is a good direction to be working in if true, but i'm slightly afraid of the consequences of having the privately owned businesses outside the reach of any government control whatsoever. Tragedy of the commons type thing, but with a really really really big commons.
But this will make many many times easier to colonise space. And that is a good thing, because if some asteroid were to hit the earth, then there'd still be people somewhere. I believe strongly that humanity's best chance of survival lies in space. And sure we may not need the resources but the technology that will come from what could be a very profitable company, could change lives.
One could argue that the existance of humans is not 'good' in the first place, but I'm not going to touch that subject. Spending billions on a project that will most likely not yield any new beneficial technology* while spending fractions of that same sum that those billionaire backers put up, would solve hunger right away*, is a waste.
Sources: 1) Billionaires one time investing money while NASA has a budget over 17 billion annually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) 2) To solve world hunger, ~750 Million USD per year would be needed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now.html)
Money is not the issue with world hunger. The global economy is $60+ Trillion and the US alone spends over $50 billion in foreign aid. The world food program spends billions directly on fighting hunger. If you could solve the problem by just chucking money at it the problem would have been solved a long time ago.
On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote: I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems.
This is just so true. Everything (prosperity, economy, research, education, medicine etc) depends first of all on energy. We can make everybody wealthy and healthy, we can stabilize population and save our environment, soils, oceans and climate if we only get enough clean sustainable energy. Until then scaling up space travel or even increasing space exploration is too energy intensive.
I don't think that doomers are right that there will be a massive human die off and civilization collapse in a couple of decades. That is quite unlikely unless we start a nuclear war. But it is certainly possible that our quality of life will start gradually degrading quite soon, as getting fossil fuels becomes less energy efficient and more expensive (it's already happening with oil as oil from tar sands, oil shales and sea bed is much harder to extract then conventional oil; coal and gas will follow some time later, meanwhile ruining our environment).
Just think about it: US as well as Southern Europe would have zero debt if oil was as cheap as 10 years ago. Get enough sustainable clean energy - and all problems from debt to enemployment, from pollution to poverty are automatically fixed. Then we can go and mine those asteroids.
What? Source?
Sustainable energy will fix unemployment, poverty and debt? How?
Well, summ up how much extra US has paid for oil imports during the last 10 years above 2002 prices plus a part of military expenses (Afganistan, Iraq, air carriers) to secure oil flow from Middle East. You may say that US would have had huge military and wars regardless of oil, but to me it seems that oil is one of the major reasons. Anyway, for Italy and for a few other European countries you can just directly sum up oil import costs minus oil imports at 2002 prices to arrive at the numbers close to their national debts: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html
As for energy extremely strongly correlating with economy and quality of life, look up this paper: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Davidson.pdf Here it is important to mention that you should have not only sustainable energy, but also enough of it. It may not fix all problems in itself (if you decide to start wars with your excess energy), but withough enough energy those problems can't be fixed.
I think you are mistaken. The Nature article is stating that Italy's trade deficit can be explained by the rise in oil prices not that their budgetary deficit can be explained by it. The two are not the same.
Also, alternatives such as solar are much more expensive than fossil fuels. Switching to them will only exacerbate the problems related to high energy prices (since energy prices will only be higher).
Somehow I have a feeling that the energy needed to get to these asteroids will be greater than the energy generated by whatever resources they manage to bring back, at least in the short term.
Very interesting and exciting endeavor though, it might pay off in the long run.
On April 20 2012 03:33 kollin wrote: EDIT: I see a lot of posters objecting to this, saying that our resources are better spent on fixing this worlds problems, before going into space. My argument against this is:
On April 20 2012 03:33 kollin wrote: EDIT: I see a lot of posters objecting to this, saying that our resources are better spent on fixing this worlds problems, before going into space. My argument against this is:
It has been estimated that the mineral wealth resident in the belt of asteroids between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter would be equivalent to about 100 billion dollars for every person on Earth today.
What i'm always wondering... what do you use to produce energy in space?
Uranium? Hard to find (i think). Oil? No dinosaurs or trees in space (afaik). Coal? Not really energy efficient. Gas (Hydrogen or such)? Get a pump to jupiter?
On April 20 2012 03:41 The_LiNk wrote: Inject trillions of dollars into the world economy? This one corporation will be account for at least 1/60th of the world's GDP in the future? What an outlandish statement and claim.
It is based on basic facts about the current market value of a single near Earth asteroid. A lot of these resources would be used in space instead of bringing them all back to Earth. This would expand our Earth based economy into space as more people are made able to live and work there. Do some research before you dismiss things based on seeing big numbers. They didn't say trillions in the first years, they said it has the potential to inject trillions, this is its eventual potential and it is completely real.
Yeah, this is what I mean, as long as they put the resources to good use to expand into space further, it will hugely boost the world economy.
Totally agree. However this isn't economically feasible if they plan on simply returning materials. They can make vastly more money selling the resources to be make into in-space assets, fuels, etc. Simply add the 2000+ USD cost per pound to launch anything to every pound of stuff you mine and you quickly realize why it is worth more up in space.
I imagine capsules of certain things will just be launched back into earths orbit and then retrieved.
On April 21 2012 06:36 Morfildur wrote: What i'm always wondering... what do you use to produce energy in space?
Uranium? Hard to find (i think). Oil? No dinosaurs or trees in space (afaik). Coal? Not really energy efficient. Gas (Hydrogen or such)? Get a pump to jupiter?
In addition, an abundant supply of cometary water ice could provide copious quantities of liquid hydrogen and oxygen, the two primary ingredients in rocket fuel. It seems likely that in the next century when we begin to colonize the inner solar system, the metals and minerals found on asteroids will provide the raw materials for space structures and comets will become the watering holes and gas stations for interplanetary spacecraft.
On April 20 2012 03:41 The_LiNk wrote: Inject trillions of dollars into the world economy? This one corporation will be account for at least 1/60th of the world's GDP in the future? What an outlandish statement and claim.
It is based on basic facts about the current market value of a single near Earth asteroid. A lot of these resources would be used in space instead of bringing them all back to Earth. This would expand our Earth based economy into space as more people are made able to live and work there. Do some research before you dismiss things based on seeing big numbers. They didn't say trillions in the first years, they said it has the potential to inject trillions, this is its eventual potential and it is completely real.
Yeah, this is what I mean, as long as they put the resources to good use to expand into space further, it will hugely boost the world economy.
Totally agree. However this isn't economically feasible if they plan on simply returning materials. They can make vastly more money selling the resources to be make into in-space assets, fuels, etc. Simply add the 2000+ USD cost per pound to launch anything to every pound of stuff you mine and you quickly realize why it is worth more up in space.
I imagine capsules of certain things will just be launched back into earths orbit and then retrieved.
That's certainly a possibility, but I imagine 99% of it won't because it is very costly and the minerals are better used in space.
I would like to share this amazing video relating to this thread. As Carl Sagan points out, we can take care of the inhabitants on this planet and explore space at the same time, just need the right system.
spend earth resources to get space resources to save earth resources. I imagine you'll spend more than you get out, but I don't care enough to research it especially if the OP doesn't post any actual scientific article. I'll just call it maek werk jobz star trek edition. I don't care about future generations since I'll be dead by the time this pays off, altruism is dum. I'd prefer they just give me the money instead for mah family and friends ^>^.
Saw this in the news today, it was the one thing out of a shit-heap of dross news that made the newspaper worth opening.
Apparently they have shortlisted a few (3600 or something) asteroids that are good candidates for testing due to their orbits being close to the earth. Pretty cool stuff.
On April 23 2012 12:14 Candadar wrote: The sooner we start mining dat Helium-3 the sooner we can move onto Nuclear Fusion :D
Tritium mining isn't the only thing that's holding back fusion technology.
Helium 3 is not tritium (and tritium mining is basically impossible with 12 years of half-life, there won't be much tritium to mine anywhere). Also, He-3 is not the easiest way to fussion for the time being.
Human exapansion into space is great and all but atm we severly lack the technology to do so.
Space exploration is far from safe, the shuttle had 2 major accidents in like 50 flights. Personally i think we lack the technology to efficiently explore space atm, and we should wait another 100-200 years so that when we explore, we can also do something usefull to it.
Space exploration now is like the vikings discovering america, they could go there but they could not take back annything usefull, Only around the year 1500 and later, when merchandise ships got big enough it became usefull to discover other continents. For now space exploration is a niche, a curiousity. To heavily invest now is premature i think because we lack the technology to efficiently make use of whatever we will discover. I am all for investing in technology to be able to do so in the future, so i dont think this is a 100% bad idea since it will also increase the level of technology at least a little. We still need a major breakthrough in propulsion before we are able to do annything usefull though.
"Also, He-3 is not the easiest way to fussion for the time being"
For the time beeing, controlled and sustainable fusion is not possible at all.
On April 23 2012 12:05 askTeivospy wrote: spend earth resources to get space resources to save earth resources. I imagine you'll spend more than you get out, but I don't care enough to research it especially if the OP doesn't post any actual scientific article. I'll just call it maek werk jobz star trek edition. I don't care about future generations since I'll be dead by the time this pays off, altruism is dum. I'd prefer they just give me the money instead for mah family and friends ^>^.
I have posted scientific articles, you just haven't bothered to read the OP properly. Your entire attitude annoys me. If you don't have anything constructive to add to this thread then leave.
On another note to everyone else, after the livestream is over I will update the OP with key information. If you feel as if I have missed something out, PM me and I will add it in.
Surveying asteroids is a fine thing to do currently. But mining them is going to be a huge thing for the technology we now have.
We will be running out of stuff like copper and platinum. And some metals like iridium are very rare. Gold always has a high cost as well. But there is only one price for gold, copper and platinum. Costs of these resources need to go up and costs of mining them have to go down until mining them from space is just as cheap as mining them anywhere else.
There will be a curiosity market for these metals. I already see Rolex selling some watch at 20x the normal cost that is made entirely from metals harvested off an asteroid. But for a long time, that will be it.
As for NASA, all spin-off technologies can be developed cheaper without launching people into space. And what NASA is doing now is building the same old rockets to launch people into space with very little scientific data as a return. They pulled out of the latest Mars drone which ESA is now working alone on. Where is the Webb space telescope? Also, the Terrestrial Planet Finder got canceled. Kepler is doing so wel. We need more of that stuff.
Deorbit ISS asap if you ask me or sell it to Cameron. Let's see if anyone in the private sector wants to buy it. If not it's not worth anything.
Also let NASA and ESA work together on some new method to launch stuff real cheap into space. So not using chemical rockets. We have that technology down and the private sector is working on that.
I'm really impressed with this, we'll see if they can deliver. Thank the Spaghetti Monster that this announcement didnt crash and burn like the Segway hype ;P
This is so sick! I know what I want to be when I grow up now :D Seriously though, this could actually finally motivate me in my studies. Imagine contributing to humanity's expansion into space!
I don't mean to be pessimistic, but am I the only skeptic? I suppose everyone has said this to every milestone in history, but what are the odds that this will be nearly as succesful as they make it sound?
On April 25 2012 10:36 TALegion wrote: I don't mean to be pessimistic, but am I the only skeptic? I suppose everyone has said this to every milestone in history, but what are the odds that this will be nearly as succesful as they make it sound?
It's definitely risky as to if it will actually ever have profitable returns. But its still exciting, even if they fail in being completely successful, they likely will have made this sort of thing much easier, and helped to push technology, and it will be exciting to watch.
Also, the early term stuff they have planned, launching small satellites, and getting them into near Earth asteroid orbits, should be relatively simple. So at least we likely won't end up empty handed from the whole thing.
On April 25 2012 10:36 TALegion wrote: I don't mean to be pessimistic, but am I the only skeptic? I suppose everyone has said this to every milestone in history, but what are the odds that this will be nearly as succesful as they make it sound?
It's definitely risky as to if it will actually ever have profitable returns. But its still exciting, even if they fail in being completely successful, they likely will have made this sort of thing much easier, and helped to push technology, and it will be exciting to watch.
Also, the early term stuff they have planned, launching small satellites, and getting them into near Earth asteroid orbits, should be relatively simple. So at least we likely won't end up empty handed from the whole thing.
I think it's just uplifting to see such an ambitious project, with potentially massive benefits for humanity as a whole just existing in its own sake. Too often the news is filled with the worst of what humanity can do, it's nice once and a while to see awe-inspiring ambition that exemplifies our best traits as a species.
On April 20 2012 03:53 felisconcolori wrote: The only snags I see to something like this is finding ways to overcome the physiological stresses of long periods of microgravity, and dealing with the dangerous environment that exists outside the Van Allen belts. But it is something we should've been tackling since the mid-70s. People can go on and on about how we have to "fix the problems on Earth first!" but that (frankly) just won't happen. We can expand, or we can all listen to Dr. Malthus chuckling in the background.
(Sadly, I don't think we can FFE.)
Malthus' theory is out dated; he didn't predict the rapid growth of technology that helped humanity to continue to expand. Currently America is capable of producing enough food to feed the entire world.
While the Malthusian Catastrophe might occur at some point in the future, it is not one of the pressing concerns that would drive the exploration of Asteroids.
No he is not. Population can grow infinitely. Technology can't. You can improve agricultural production. But you get diminishing returns. How much technology you have and how much production you have in the end doesn't matter. What matters is is how long technology can avoid a huge famine until woman's rights are strongly enough established so they start to do birth management. Once they do, woman get way way less children. If this never happens, you are going to get higher than carrying capaticy with way more people and the percentage of people that die will be way bigger. And the number of resources you have to share with the world population will be way less.
On April 20 2012 03:53 felisconcolori wrote: The only snags I see to something like this is finding ways to overcome the physiological stresses of long periods of microgravity, and dealing with the dangerous environment that exists outside the Van Allen belts. But it is something we should've been tackling since the mid-70s. People can go on and on about how we have to "fix the problems on Earth first!" but that (frankly) just won't happen. We can expand, or we can all listen to Dr. Malthus chuckling in the background.
(Sadly, I don't think we can FFE.)
Malthus' theory is out dated; he didn't predict the rapid growth of technology that helped humanity to continue to expand. Currently America is capable of producing enough food to feed the entire world.
While the Malthusian Catastrophe might occur at some point in the future, it is not one of the pressing concerns that would drive the exploration of Asteroids.
All the more reason to get into asteroid mining before we have a looming Malthusian Catastrophe forcing us there. A stitch in time saves ten and all that.
On April 20 2012 03:53 felisconcolori wrote: The only snags I see to something like this is finding ways to overcome the physiological stresses of long periods of microgravity, and dealing with the dangerous environment that exists outside the Van Allen belts. But it is something we should've been tackling since the mid-70s. People can go on and on about how we have to "fix the problems on Earth first!" but that (frankly) just won't happen. We can expand, or we can all listen to Dr. Malthus chuckling in the background.
(Sadly, I don't think we can FFE.)
Malthus' theory is out dated; he didn't predict the rapid growth of technology that helped humanity to continue to expand. Currently America is capable of producing enough food to feed the entire world.
While the Malthusian Catastrophe might occur at some point in the future, it is not one of the pressing concerns that would drive the exploration of Asteroids.
Food isnt the only ressource that keeps the world from colla^sing nowadays.
On April 20 2012 03:53 felisconcolori wrote: The only snags I see to something like this is finding ways to overcome the physiological stresses of long periods of microgravity, and dealing with the dangerous environment that exists outside the Van Allen belts. But it is something we should've been tackling since the mid-70s. People can go on and on about how we have to "fix the problems on Earth first!" but that (frankly) just won't happen. We can expand, or we can all listen to Dr. Malthus chuckling in the background.
(Sadly, I don't think we can FFE.)
Malthus' theory is out dated; he didn't predict the rapid growth of technology that helped humanity to continue to expand. Currently America is capable of producing enough food to feed the entire world.
While the Malthusian Catastrophe might occur at some point in the future, it is not one of the pressing concerns that would drive the exploration of Asteroids.
Malthus is surely outdated regarding food supply. Means we can easily manage to provide enough food to encounter other severe problems regarding growth.
A modified malthusian argument regarding finite resources on the other hand is not so unrealistic. There are different world pop growth and economic growth predictions, and depending on which ones you favor you run into difficulties supplying earths population with all necessary resources sooner or later. We won't die to a lack of food, but some catastrophic events regarding the lack of other resources is not unlikely I think. (Again, it's hard to predict future developments).
On topic: I like it. We need people to push ahead. Technological development is imho the only way we can tackle all the problems we will encounter in the next 50 to 100 years. And asteroid mining surely isn't too bad.
btw. regarding mining platin etc. what about supply & demand? Won't the increase drop prices or will the amount be small enough not to influence the market 2 much? (I don't know about the global platin market for example...)
For 100$ you can get a high resolution photo of any place on earth or space of your choosing taken with their space telescope. This is something that usually costs 10000$
That's actually really interesting, a photo of any place you want?! O_O
But then again if you think about it, there could be a lot of cloud cover etc (I guess it doesn't only use a normal camera and combines multiple imaging types?). Also you start to get into international issues with countries perhaps taking very big issue with this kind of imaging by whomever just pays $100, depending on just how high-res/zoomed in the images are.
Why don't they tell us what's so important about mining asteroids? There's obviously got to be something useful about it, and you'd think they'd include that somewhere in the article.
On June 22 2012 01:06 Areon wrote: Why don't they tell us what's so important about mining asteroids? There's obviously got to be something useful about it, and you'd think they'd include that somewhere in the article.
Here's a new talk from Planetary Resources that's interesting, not much of a tech talk though. It's mostly focused on the use of the mining materials available on asteroids and the economics of those resources. So not any news really, but maybe presented more clearly.
I have some sort of weird vision of going to a nearby asteroid, wrapping a cable around it and towing it to the earth. And maybe there are competing companies that are all mining the same set of asteroids so there'd be a rush who gets to 'tag' an asteroid first. Personally I think we should have peace on earth before mining asteroids, but that's me.
On January 26 2013 10:33 Grumbels wrote: I have some sort of weird vision of going to a nearby asteroid, wrapping a cable around it and towing it to the earth. And maybe there are competing companies that are all mining the same set of asteroids so there'd be a rush who gets to 'tag' an asteroid first. Personally I think we should have peace on earth before mining asteroids, but that's me.
On January 26 2013 10:56 DDie wrote: The trailer reminded me of the Rekall company in the original Total Recall.
The good old ''We are doing this for you and not to fill our pockets/dominate the world'' speech.
Yeah, the backers are billionaires after all, filling their pockets is what they do best. But if they can reduce the cost of space exploration, eventually all of mankind will benefit. I don't see any of the worlds government space agencies doing much about cost.
I was wondering about the danger of asteroid mining. We know there is the occasional risk of a nearby giant asteroid crashing into earth and causing damage, supposedly this has happened various times in the past and will again happen in the future. The odds of this happening in the next few hundred years are very small though, and chances are that we'll have technology available to avert cataclysmic collisions in the future. (and of course the technology developing depends on ventures like Planetary Resources)
On the other hand, suppose that we aim to steer asteroids toward earth to bring them into an orbit where they are accessible for us. We could even develop parachute or braking systems to have them safely land on earth. Now, aren't the odds of something like this ever going wrong a lot bigger than the paltry chance of these big asteroid collisions with earth? Nuclear technology was developed and it helped to create a lot of energy, but it has also been destructive at times (Chernobyl & recent hits on Japanese reactors because of the earthquake). Wouldn't there be a chance for something similar to happen with these projects?
(I'm not super informed though, I'm just wondering)
Can someone please explain the economics on this one, here are a few questions that can help with my understanding of the matter:
1. Are there already identified asteroids for minings? 2. Have we already accounted for all the minable resources on the Earth such that these outer space explorations are justified (meaning, there are very few left and it is time to explore already)? I ask this question because I have read something last time that we are nowhere near mining or knowing 20% of Earth minerals. It was in some science magazine I skimmed so I can't remember exactly, this could be wrong. 3. How does outer-space resource economy/politics work? Who owns what?
A chunk of steel in space is not only a regular chunk of steel but also all the costs of getting a regular chunk of steel from earth into space. That makes it pretty valuable for anyone who likes their steel in space. The theory is that as humanity becomes increasingly reliant on orbital stuff and the market for it increases it will make good economic sense to build stuff in orbit.
On April 20 2012 04:59 jmack wrote: Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
Actually this kind of space exploration would have direct beneficial effects regarding the conservation of resources and how to feed people with limited resources. Humans would need to be hyper efficient with energy and food resources in space - you can't just truck it in if you run out. The technology discovered to increase fuel efficiency, newer batteries, and methods of food preservation would help solve some of the "problems down here".
And mining asteroids would be more efficient than mining it here on earth. Asteroids contain purer quantities of minerals because they were never incorporated into a planet. Most of the heavy metals here on earth are contained within the earth's core and the only reason it exists on the surface is a result of tectonic activity; and it's diluted with other metals and elements. The heavy metals in asteroids would be accessible since many asteroids have high purity of ore. And no need for any fancy space forges since you can smelt ore using electromagnetic energy which can be done in a vacuum - if you can extract the metal into small bricks you can easily land them on earth using some type of robotic re-entry vehicle. You can build the re-entry vehicle out of the material that is being smelted, land it on earth, then smelt it down here. The space shuttle is nothing but a giant glider that weighs several tons.
Space exploration and mining is needed to help solve today's and tomorrow's issues. Forgetting space exploration is shortsighted. A lot of today's technology was a direct result of space exploration.
"Today's issues" apparently equals availability of metals used in cell phone production. I don't have anything against asteroid mining, but I think it's pretty obvious that it will take decades before this will solve any resource scarcity and it's mostly invested in by billionaires that happen to be space geeks.
On January 27 2013 01:28 Grumbels wrote: "Today's issues" apparently equals availability of metals used in cell phone production. I don't have anything against asteroid mining, but I think it's pretty obvious that it will take decades before this will solve any resource scarcity and it's mostly invested in by billionaires that happen to be space geeks.
I think everyone agrees that it is gonna take a LONG time before any profit can be made from this. But don't for a second doubt that there is huge profit to be made once the technology have been somewhat refined.
On April 20 2012 04:59 jmack wrote: Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
...Space exploration and mining is needed to help solve today's and tomorrow's issues. Forgetting space exploration is shortsighted. A lot of today's technology was a direct result of space exploration.
Yes but it was mostly as a result of spin-off applications. He all-capitalized efficient, probably because he means that it would be better if we actually targeted the areas where we need to have meaningful technological advances, rather than hoping that the technology developed for space exploration can somehow be applied back on Earth.
Why do you need to go into space to develop better ways to conserve resources? If anything going into space just to figure out how to make things more efficient *in space*, and then trying to find a way to translate that efficiency to systems on Earth would be a very weird, inefficient allocation of resources.
Recently ( like a week ago) a new company was announced that plans to directly compete with Planetary Resources. It's called Deep Space Industries. http://deepspaceindustries.com/
Also, I don't know if it's really worth it to argue with people about the whole "we have too many problems on earth to go to space" thing. As long as these things are privately funded they, thankfully, have no actual control over the matter. And in 15 years they will be singing a different tune.
It has been argued to death and every single time the same conclusion is reached. You can't solve all of earth's problems by throwing money at them, and even if you could more pop up as you go along which means you will actually never progress in any way, but be stuck in a vicious circle of problems and problem solving.
On April 20 2012 04:59 jmack wrote: Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
...Space exploration and mining is needed to help solve today's and tomorrow's issues. Forgetting space exploration is shortsighted. A lot of today's technology was a direct result of space exploration.
Yes but it was mostly as a result of spin-off applications. He all-capitalized efficient, probably because he means that it would be better if we actually targeted the areas where we need to have meaningful technological advances, rather than hoping that the technology developed for space exploration can somehow be applied back on Earth.
Why do you need to go into space to develop better ways to conserve resources? If anything going into space just to figure out how to make things more efficient *in space*, and then trying to find a way to translate that efficiency to systems on Earth would be a very weird, inefficient allocation of resources.
It's not an inefficient allocation of resources. Because Space is such an unforgiving environment it forces you to develop technologies that can withstand the extreme environment of microgravity - technologies that can be very useful here on earth. Just look at what NASA has done in it's quest for space exploration: NASA Spin-off technologies. Just about every technology in use today was someone's attempt to do something better, faster, stronger than what was currently available. Space is very unforgiving so only proven technology will survive - space is the ultimate Darwinian frontier for developing useful and practical products. Here is another link to a PDF of the technology NASA claims to have direct benefits here on earth: NASA Exploration and Innovation Lead to New Discoveries PDF
Inefficient allocation of resources - I hardly think so. NASA expenditure is only half a penny on the dollar in regards to the federal budget - I think we are getting a lot of bang for the buck - err half-penny. Just think of the information/communication revolution and how dependent it is on satellite technology. Space exploration is needed and should be a healthy part of a sensible government budget.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/cVkxR.png)
Large power cables of thousands of kilometers going right to space ?
