Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

If we are going for asteroid mining the material we would want the most is water.  This is very simple indeed to mine, you just melt it down and filter it.

Yup, and adding energy turns it into rocket fuel.

[Scoops Novel]

We haven't considered the mass nerd migration factor. Whether that is worth it's last savory denizens is an interesting question.

[GreatWyrmGold]

We'll never get to the profitable stage if we don't go through an unprofitable stage first, though. Besides, each dollar spent provides a much larger impact to the economy, so there would probably be short-term benefits as well.

1) We understand the concept of investing for the future.  That is not our issue.  Our issue is that it's a bad investment.

Oh? There's a few important resources that are easy to get on other worlds, including one that we've completely run out of here.

2) While it's true that space exploration leads to economic impacts we could more benefits from targets closer to earth.

Perhaps. Depends on how well the colonies turn out and what "targets" you're talking about.

Think about the Scottish colony at Panama.  It wasn't an inherently bad idea.  But they jumped the gun and tried to make a colony with woefully inadequate tools.  The result was that they expended a lot of effort and got none of the benefits that a more viable colony would have given them.  Mars will happen if we continue to develop our ability to explore space.  But sending a bunch of underequiped colonists to die won't help.  It will just set us back.

Agreed...but we DO have the tools. Really, the only obstacles will be volunteers and radiation at this point.

As for minerals, well asteroids are easier than Mars. And robotic mine don't sound that hard. Remember, robotic doesn't mean entirely automated, once the asteroid is parked in orbit, you can remote-control the minebot. And since bots don't need stuff like air, food or vacations down on earth, they're much cheaper and effective.

However...what happens when it all breaks down?

As for land, I can't imagine a time when settling the Sahara would be harder than settling Mars. Having an athmosphere and protection from cosmic ray is pretty awesome. Or settling Siberia. We still got plenty of space on Earth when you think about it. And population is set to peak at 10 billions, so we're actually fine.

1. Mars is still bigger, and right on top of some great deposits of various minerals where you won't have to worry about the environment or neighbors or anything.
2. The Earth can't really support the 7 billions it has now, even assuming you're right...

Also, having humans just make everything more complicated. You might send them up once in a while, to fix somthing, but why on earth would you want a fully functional space station?

Simplicity. Also, to alleviate concern on Earth about robots functioning without human guidance. Assuming we're going farther than the Moon to look for asteroids (which are pretty uncommon around here), there's probably going to be a delay measurable in hours...

If we are going for asteroid mining the material we would want the most is water.  This is very simple indeed to mine, you just melt it down and filter it.

Unless we're setting up colonies, not a lot of need for water. Clean water? Sure, but a lot more than mining can provide, and mostly to areas which aren't suited for regular deliveries of asteroid water. Fuel use? I suppose that's useful, but I think that various metals would be considered more valuable.

We haven't considered the mass nerd migration factor. Whether that is worth it's last savory denizens is an interesting question.

Not just nerds. People who are bored of their dull lives; people reminiscing of colonial days; adventurous people; entrepreneurs; etc.

[PanH]

2. The Earth can't really support the 7 billions it has now, even assuming you're right...

Yes it can. But with the increased (and increasing) standarts of life, Earth will be able to support less and less humans (plus pollution).
In terms of food alone, it is possible.

About water, our problem with it currently is that most of it is with salt or dirty. But it's easier to recycle/remove the salt than go mining it on an asteroid.

[Sheb]

I don't think people would have problems with bots working on their own. It's not like I feel threatened by a bulldozer a few thousands km aways. As for repair, well, either you've got a remote-controllable bot that can fix them, or you ship up a human when you need it.

As for the overpopulation. Mars can support exactly 0 people at the moment. Surface areas of sand got a pretty low value, that's why the Sahara is empty right now. Not worth going to Mars.

[GreatWyrmGold]

2. The Earth can't really support the 7 billions it has now, even assuming you're right...

Yes it can. But with the increased (and increasing) standarts of life, Earth will be able to support less and less humans (plus pollution).
In terms of food alone, it is possible.

Okay, 7 or even probably 15 billion people could survive on Earth. But not at our current standard of living, certainly not with our current environmental practices, not for the long run.

As for the overpopulation. Mars can support exactly 0 people at the moment. Surface areas of sand got a pretty low value, that's why the Sahara is empty right now. Not worth going to Mars.

We've got self-contained greenhouses that can support people in pretty small areas. Put a bunch of those together and you've got food and water. It's a matter of allocating resources. And we're out of space to do so on Earth.

[mainiac]

In terms of food we already feed 7 billion people while letting half the food we grow rot without ever being eaten.  In terms of energy there is clearly enough solar power to power many times our current population, it's just a matter of making the initial effort to go green.  In terms of materials there is a whole lot of accessible iron and timber and ammonia and whatnot in the world.

We've developed a society around things such as oil that are growing scarce.  But that doesn't mean that we can't come up with very viable ways to live that don't depend on these scarce resources.  It's just a matter of getting more efficient.  It's going to happen.  The world can pretty easily sustain a larger population then today at a higher standard of living then today.

[Sheb]

I love how you go "We can survive in Mars's arid environment!" and then deny we can survive on earth.

We got the Sahara. All the deserts. Hell, it'd be easier to make giant floating platform than to go on Mars. Or finally get around settling South Dakota. :p

[PanH]

In terms of energy there is clearly enough solar power to power many times our current population, it's just a matter of making the initial effort to go green.

No. No way that happens. I already explained why solar is clearly unefficient alone (or do you want to have electricity only when there is sun ?), and the solar power is extremely weak. You couldn't power our current needs even while putting solar panels everywhere (on Earth).
Also, if you want an comparison, producing enough panels to get as much power as a nuclear plant will pollute way more than the whole nuclear plants. The fact is that with our current technology, solar power is nowhere near reliable.

Okay, 7 or even probably 15 billion people could survive on Earth. But not at our current standard of living, certainly not with our current environmental practices, not for the long run.

Not with the western standart of living, indeed. The estimation of humans that could live (!= live with high standart) on Earth, is around 10 billion.

[Aseaheru]

For that last bit: if we were sane. meaning no crap about people getting handouts. everyone gets the same and there will be much less anger.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I love how you go "We can survive in Mars's arid environment!" and then deny we can survive on earth.

We can survive on Mars if we organize an effort properly. We can survive on Earth if we organize properly. It's just easier to organize a single colony than billions of people in nations with clashing interests.

Why? Two reasons:
1. Less people means people know each other better. If the entire population of a Martian colony was about 2,500 people, you'd probably know at least a couple percent personally, a large fraction by name, and most or all by face. You have next to no chance of even meeting 99% of the Earth's population. When just about everyone knows just about everyone, there's fewer people that you'd be willing to screw over to help yourself, and random people are more likely to help you (even if strangers--you're probably their wife's best friend's greenhouse buddy or something).
2. By removing (or at least reducing) the importance of nationality--assuming a single colony equally represents all peoples of Earth, which it won't--there are a lot fewer conflicting interests to draw resources away from making sure people can survive. A colony won't spend billions of dollars to ferret out terrorists--any terrorists would be turned in by their former friends or their friends, because everyone loses big time if the terrorists succeed, including and probably especially the terrorists themselves. No wars, either, or at least a lot fewer.
Even intercolonial conflicts won't be likely (for a while, at least)--there's nothing worth fighting over and not enough resources to devote to war.

[Aseaheru]

i agree. people will be to busy staying alive to fight.

[GreatWyrmGold]

i agree. people will be to busy staying alive to fight.

Which is better than it is on Earth, where people are too busy fighting to stay alive. Well, too busy with rivalries and their selfish interests to make sure that Earth will be able to sustain the kind of society we want it to when their great-grandkids or whenever are born, but similar idea.

[PanH]

I doubt that, but that's my own view of humans.

[Aseaheru]

yes.
besides, who wants to live in a place where there are very few calling all the shots? in a smaller population there is more chance for democracy. or transparency. or anything else besides whats in the USA now.