Slashdot Mirror


We Need To Build Industrial Zones In Space In Order To Save Earth, Says Jeff Bezos (cnbc.com)

Onstage at the Code Conference, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos said that we have to start bringing parts of the industrial economy to space in order to "save Earth." Bezos also said that we must protect our planet, adding that we don't want to live in a retrograde world where "we have to freeze population growth." From the report: Bezos says tasks that require lots of energy shouldn't be handled on Earth. Instead, we should perform them in space, and that will happen within the next few hundred years. "Energy is limited here. In at least a few hundred years... all of our heavy industry will be moved off-planet," Bezos added. "Earth will be zoned residential and light industrial. You shouldn't be doing heavy energy on earth. We can build gigantic chip factories in space." Solar energy, for instance, is more practical for factories in space, he said. "We don't have to actually build them here," he said. "The Earth shades itself, [whereas] in space you can get solar power 24/7. ... The problem with other planets ... people will visit Mars, and we will settle Mars, and people should because it's cool, but for heavy industry, I would actually put it in space."

3 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Unlimited Population Growth by WarJolt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually population growth freezes itself when you educate people. Look at Japan. Low immigration and low birthrate has lead to population decline.

  2. Re:Why shouldn't we freeze population growth? by esonik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem is that's is very difficult to freeze population to a constant level (see China). You might be able to freeze the head count but run the risk of severly skewing your age pyramid, which can lead to massive problems a generation later. Moreover, birth control isn't popular in the free world, you'd be limiting an essential human freedom (and the purpose of life).

    The danger is declining population.
    You don't actually want declining population:
    1) Most pension schemes rely on at least constant population. Smarter pension schemes rely on economic growth (which is possible with slightly declining population), but not all countries have them implemented.
    2) Declining population can also trigger massive problems with economy: You'll have to divest in a controlled and smart way. Example: real estate values are likely to drop if head count goes down. See former East German towns: some of them have become almost ghost towns, many with only retirees living there. This triggers business closings, which in turn makes young people move away. A self enforcing negative trend.

    More population is no problem. There's lots of space on earth. If it becomes too crowded people will move to Mars or space. In fact, that could become a driving force, eventually.

  3. Re:Totally makes sense. Coming from a man... by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > and usually costs more energy than that thing could harvest in space).

    That's incorrect. The Falcon 9 rocket has a liftoff mass of 550,000. Their website says it is 96% rocket, and 4% payload. So 24 units of rocket per unit of payload. The combustion energy of the fuel is 13 MJ/kg, and the embodied energy of the rocket hardware is in the same range. So about 312 MJ/kg is required to get the payload into orbit. 1 kg of modern space solar panels produce 175 Watts, and they last >15 years in low orbit. Duty cycle is 60% in low orbit due to the Earth's shadow. So they produce 31,556,925 seconds/year x 15 years x 60% x 175 Watts/kg = 49.7 GJ/kg. That's 160 times their launch energy. That's why satellites almost universally use solar panels instead of fuel cells or some other power source.