We're going to need to put some serious megatonnage of weapons up there sooner or later. When it reaches the stage where large metallic ships are zipping around the system at hundreds or thousands of kilometers a second, the earth needs to be able to put them down rapidly if they become a threat, even by accident.
Unless you can show a comprehensive business case, mining asteroids is pure science fiction.
The single and only thing stopping asteroid mining from being hugely profitable are the costs to orbit (see link in my sig).
Besides, while asteroids are a good source of metals, they don't contain much other needed stuff, such as energy.
Solar power satellites such as JAXA are building, and done.
And if we had plenty of energy, we might as well go after low grade ores on Earth.
No, because of the environmental damage involved. Why rip up large portions of the easrth when you can do it in space where nobody cares about pollution?
And yes, people are growing exponentially, and they'll continue to do so.
No, they aren't, and they won't.
The fact that in some societies, like Western Europe, the birthrates are declining is only a temporary anomaly. Couples that don't have any children are a genetic dead end. Their genes will be gone in 1 generation. On the other hand, couples that love big families will spread their genes exponentially. Just wait a few dozen generations, and they will have completely displaced the others.
You have no evidence whatsoever to back this up, even excusing the mistaken idea that the desire for big families is somehow genetic. But I am getting a strong waft of malthusian socioeconomic illiteracy from your posts.
Of course, AI robots by themselves do not solve the problem of resource scarcity.
Asteroids do.
And people will continue to grow exponentially
Don't worry, they don't and aren't.
so on a fixed earth, you'll always reach a point where not everybody gets a basic standard of living.
Its quite doable. And if you look at population trends in societies nearing post scarcity status, like Western Europe, it becomes clear that the best way to head off any such hypothesised difficulties is to provide a decent standard of living to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
That's what's known as a post scarcity society, and it will probably end up looking like Western Europe on steroids. A decent basic standard of living for everyone, plenty of educational opportunities, but if you want the good toys you need to excel. What will mostly change will be the definition of "good toys", in a fully post scarcity society, limited only by the physical size of the earth, obviously not everyone can have a cruise liner of their own. A high end luxury car and plenty of living space, sure, but ultimately limitations would have to be put on production.
Whether those come in the form of fiat or economic acrobtics is really the main debate on the issue.
I dunno, Apple doesn't really make much money from advertising. They make it from actual products. Google and Facebook on the other hand are both marketing companies, this is a weird one alright.
VCs aren't particularly interested in long term investments either. They want in, pump, IPO, and out. That's how they make their money, and how they earned the sobriquet "vulture capitalists". Something to bear in mind when considering the comments in the article.
Plus its one of those things that the market has a hard time finding the correct value of. To Google it might be a couple of dollars, to me its more like ten grand a month.
How is that substantially different to online collaboration, like we're doing right now? Some people just want to learn, they aren't interested in academic politics or filler classes. If they can now get a respectable certification, its a giant leap.
I think he messed up by comparing NASA's budget to social safety net and education budgets in the video though, the implication that one should grow at a cost to the others is not going to sit well with many. He carefully stepped around mentioning the bloated military budget for some reason.
Eh no, what happened was they moved on to heroin. Seriously the whole heroin problem in the USA? Mafia, from start to finish. Other than that they were on their last legs.
Yep, it would put cartels and the mafia out of business overnight, leading to less crime and a marked improvement in living conditions and health for everyone, which is why its unlikely to ever happen. Politicians know its good to have a boogeyman in your back pocket to scare the electorate, like wartime presidents never losing office. Law enforcement knows their budgets would be slashed without much crime, and the increasingly paramilitary tactics they are adopting would become unneccessary. In short, those in power would lose control.
Yeah you have to admire the unadulterated evil brass balls on these lads. Its a nice mix of social engineering and tech. If they put half as much effort into legitimate business imagine how much money they'd have made.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Japan used to have a reputation for cheap and crappy products, now they are world leaders in high quality and engineering. Its not that hard to change a brand, just make better stuff.
It really brings home an appreciation for the human race. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about environmental damage we really are the only chance for earth based biodiversity to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
We're going to need to put some serious megatonnage of weapons up there sooner or later. When it reaches the stage where large metallic ships are zipping around the system at hundreds or thousands of kilometers a second, the earth needs to be able to put them down rapidly if they become a threat, even by accident.
Unless you can show a comprehensive business case, mining asteroids is pure science fiction.
The single and only thing stopping asteroid mining from being hugely profitable are the costs to orbit (see link in my sig).
Besides, while asteroids are a good source of metals, they don't contain much other needed stuff, such as energy.
Solar power satellites such as JAXA are building, and done.
And if we had plenty of energy, we might as well go after low grade ores on Earth.
No, because of the environmental damage involved. Why rip up large portions of the easrth when you can do it in space where nobody cares about pollution?
And yes, people are growing exponentially, and they'll continue to do so.
No, they aren't, and they won't.
The fact that in some societies, like Western Europe, the birthrates are declining is only a temporary anomaly. Couples that don't have any children are a genetic dead end. Their genes will be gone in 1 generation. On the other hand, couples that love big families will spread their genes exponentially. Just wait a few dozen generations, and they will have completely displaced the others.
You have no evidence whatsoever to back this up, even excusing the mistaken idea that the desire for big families is somehow genetic. But I am getting a strong waft of malthusian socioeconomic illiteracy from your posts.
Of course, AI robots by themselves do not solve the problem of resource scarcity.
Asteroids do.
And people will continue to grow exponentially
Don't worry, they don't and aren't.
so on a fixed earth, you'll always reach a point where not everybody gets a basic standard of living.
Its quite doable. And if you look at population trends in societies nearing post scarcity status, like Western Europe, it becomes clear that the best way to head off any such hypothesised difficulties is to provide a decent standard of living to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
That's what's known as a post scarcity society, and it will probably end up looking like Western Europe on steroids. A decent basic standard of living for everyone, plenty of educational opportunities, but if you want the good toys you need to excel. What will mostly change will be the definition of "good toys", in a fully post scarcity society, limited only by the physical size of the earth, obviously not everyone can have a cruise liner of their own. A high end luxury car and plenty of living space, sure, but ultimately limitations would have to be put on production.
Whether those come in the form of fiat or economic acrobtics is really the main debate on the issue.
I dunno, Apple doesn't really make much money from advertising. They make it from actual products. Google and Facebook on the other hand are both marketing companies, this is a weird one alright.
Google is a marketing company. That so many traditionally anti-marketing techies don't grasp this just means they are a very good marketing company.
Is it just me or should building skyscrapers not be a speed trial in any case?
I doubt its going to happen, it makes it too easy to borg the entire human race.
Yep, touchscreen phones and tablets are largely commuter toys, I needs me a keyboard to get any work done.
VCs are in no way institutional investors.
VCs aren't particularly interested in long term investments either. They want in, pump, IPO, and out. That's how they make their money, and how they earned the sobriquet "vulture capitalists". Something to bear in mind when considering the comments in the article.
Scars are generally tougher than the surrounding tissue, and I wasn't aware exploding teeth were a major mountaineering hazard. Sounds like PR to me.
Plus its one of those things that the market has a hard time finding the correct value of. To Google it might be a couple of dollars, to me its more like ten grand a month.
How is that substantially different to online collaboration, like we're doing right now? Some people just want to learn, they aren't interested in academic politics or filler classes. If they can now get a respectable certification, its a giant leap.
I think he messed up by comparing NASA's budget to social safety net and education budgets in the video though, the implication that one should grow at a cost to the others is not going to sit well with many. He carefully stepped around mentioning the bloated military budget for some reason.
Yep. As long as you have contracted for, or as long as you're getting paid.
Shame about the diabetes, tooth loss and obesity though.
Ease back on the sugar, guys.
Eh no, what happened was they moved on to heroin. Seriously the whole heroin problem in the USA? Mafia, from start to finish. Other than that they were on their last legs.
Yep, it would put cartels and the mafia out of business overnight, leading to less crime and a marked improvement in living conditions and health for everyone, which is why its unlikely to ever happen. Politicians know its good to have a boogeyman in your back pocket to scare the electorate, like wartime presidents never losing office. Law enforcement knows their budgets would be slashed without much crime, and the increasingly paramilitary tactics they are adopting would become unneccessary. In short, those in power would lose control.
Yeah you have to admire the unadulterated evil brass balls on these lads. Its a nice mix of social engineering and tech. If they put half as much effort into legitimate business imagine how much money they'd have made.
'WeCanHearYouHavingSex' — a great way to freak out your annoying neighbors without hiding in their bushes or peeping in their windows late at night.
I was looking for a better way to freak out my neighbours than hiding in their bushes or peeping in their windows late at night.
Thanks slashdot!
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Japan used to have a reputation for cheap and crappy products, now they are world leaders in high quality and engineering. Its not that hard to change a brand, just make better stuff.
The US got federalism more or less right two centuries ago. We'll get it more or less right soon enough.
I think quite a lot of European citizens might well disagree with you here. This really isn't the USA.
And rightly so, there's enough permed hairy pr0n on the internet as it is.
It really brings home an appreciation for the human race. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about environmental damage we really are the only chance for earth based biodiversity to survive.