A few days ago, the following conversation took place in the tavern (note, the oldest post is at the bottom, the newest at the top). I would like to continue the conversation here.
QuoteNomadic
I agree though with sparkle, this has probably gotten long enough to move to a thread.
Nomadic
Provided they can actually get the resources out of the asteroids space mining is actually more practical than earth mining. Due to asteroid composition a single metal rich asteroid can net you more platinum than all the platinum ever mined on Earth in the history of the human race. It's ridiculously profitable.
Elemental_Elf
Renewable energy is a tar-pit people keep stuffing money into with the hope that, eventually, something will become commercially viable on a large scale. Space research is no different. We should not de-fund either because great advancements and spin-off research cannot be made if the projects are not funded. Both are going to make Humanity, and the earth, a better place.
sparkletwist
I think that this is an interesting discussion worthy of a thread. *cough*
Señor Leetz
Plus, the amount of resources spent versus the amount retrieved is astronomically unbalanced.
Señor Leetz
And by resources we have right now, I mean wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal.
Señor Leetz
I don't see it happening. If these people want to do something useful with billions of dollars, they should focus on the resources we have right now that aren't used to their capacity instead of pouring money into looney space schemes. However, I am with Steerpike in that the idea of space mining is awesome, if not practical. Here's a good article from the BBC about it : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17827347
Elemental_Elf
Space Tourism, HE-3 and space metals are going to be the 3 driving factors that push companies out into space.
Llum
Steerpike, every metal is a non-renewable resource. If we replace every internal combustion engine car with an electric car you know what we'll face? Peak copper, and eventually peak nickel, peak platinum etc. Asteroids are RICH in minerals.
Steerpike
I'm not sure that follows. If our population continues to increase and we remain dependent on non-renewable resources, then yes we will. If we can get global population replacement (zero population growth) and switch to renewable resources, we might not have to leave for a ridiculously long time. Of course, that said, I'm still 100% in favour of badass asteroid mining.
limetom
A very simplistic argument for the economic viability of space exploration: The Earth is finite. Therefore, eventually, we'll have to leave.
Contumelious Che
Always wondered if there's enough profit to offset the enormous cost of exploding ourselves into space.
LordVreeg
Oh, the trouble I can still cause....
Nomadic
Cameron is just one part of a quite interesting group (which includes people like Larry Page and a number of other prominent figures)
http://www.planetaryresources.com/team/
Elemental_Elf
Always liked Cameron, good for him. Space Mining is the ticket to make private enterprises interested in the final frontier.
Superfluous Crow
Now we are talking about the third dimension, did all of you guys hear about the upcoming crazy asteroid mining space venture funded by James Cameron?
Yeah, I heard about that. If they can make profit out of it I'd be all for it. It's a relief for Earth, and has the potential to generate mega-bucks.
Maybe it's the next big thing, you know, but that'd come much faster than expected. :)
I'm 100% for this, for sure, though I'm curious to see what happens to Earth's economy when the markets get flooded with raw materials. Imagine if the price of gold suddenly dropped to $100/ounce because a mile-long nugget became our newest moon.
Quote from: LlumSteerpike, every metal is a non-renewable resource. If we replace every internal combustion engine car with an electric car you know what we'll face? Peak copper, and eventually peak nickel, peak platinum etc. Asteroids are RICH in minerals.
First off, I'm totally behind the idea of asteroid mining for metal, so don't get me wrong. I'm also not super knowledgeable on these subjects so it could be I'm just blathering here. But the idea that metal is non-renewable seems only part of the truth to me. We can recycle metal by melting it down and re-using it. Apparently, ferrous metals are already very widely recycled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrous_metal_recycling). According to this major metal recycler in Calgary, copper is 100% recyclable (http://www.calgarymetal.com/blog/whats_all_this_talk_about_copper4/). So, even if we run out of actual metal to dig up from the ground, we're still not "out of metal." If our population stops growing or even starts to shrink, we could simply recycle lots of old metal products. This might not quite make metal a "renewable resource" in the same way that sunlight, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy is, but it's a world away from fossil fuels (wikipedia straight up calls metal a renewable resource).
Again, though, asteroid mining is awesome, so problem solved in any event.
Quote from: Elemental ElfRenewable energy is a tar-pit people keep stuffing money into with the hope that, eventually, something will become commercially viable on a large scale.
Again, I'm no expert here, but as I understand it, wind power is becoming hugely more common - not sure about profits
per se, but all that really matters at the end of the day is whether we can reasonably switch to a sustainable, renewable model. This article (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/gains-in-global-wind-capacity-reported/) cites the "Global Wind Energy Council" - who sound like they'd know what they're talking about - saying that the wind industry grew by 30% in 2009, and this report (http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/GSR2011_Master18.pdf) suggests that in 2011, 20% of electricity came from renewable resources and 16% of all energy used globally was renewable. That's a lot. Renewable energy is becoming more and more viable and more widely used.
Look at how much things changed over the course of the twentieth century. In 1900 we didn't have airplanes, automobiles were incredibly primitive and weren't affordable to the average consumer and the closest thing we had to a computer was a punchcard calculator and the half-forgotten pipe dream of Charles Babbage. We hadn't discovered nuclear fission. The telephone was still considered "new-fangled."
And look at us now...
So to me, gloomy pronouncements about the implausibility of renewable resources seem unduly pessimistic. That said, I may be twisting your comment a little, Elf - you're well aware, as you suggest, that sinking money into renewable energy and space
are a good idea from the spin-offs. I'm just making the argument that at least for renewable energy, there are more transparent dividends from a civilizational perspective.
Quote from: SteerpikeBut the idea that metal is non-renewable seems only part of the truth to me
A non-renewable resource is one where there is a finite limit of and we cannot create more. Wood is renewable because we can grow more trees, solar is renewable because the sun will ALWAYS shine (from a human perspective anyway). There are a finite limit of metals that we can mine in the earth. Sure we can recycle, but that means every bit of metal HAS to be recycled. Because once something is thrown away, it's out of the cycle.
Peak crises aren't about having no more of said material (which is how the media portray it, we aren't going to suddenly have no more oil anywhere), it's about the demand for a resource out-stripping the supply and reserves (and potential reserves) of a material. Essentially we will never be able to use as much of that material as we previously have before. So regardless of recycling we will hit peak metals, because there's only so much of it.
Renewable energy is a quagmire of investment because the industry is changing and evolving so rapidly. What was successful yesterday may not be successful tomorrow. I think some people, and governments, are a bit too gungho about switching from non-renewable to renewable energy sources. I remember reading an article where California shut down one of its biggest non-renewable power plants and opened up a brand new solar plant. The only problem is that the solar plant did not pump out any where near the same amount of electricity as the non-renewable plant.
Everyone wants something to replace coal as the main energy source used to power electricity plants but there will never be just one replacement - it will be a reliance on multiple kinds of power generation (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc.). The problem with this dispersal of energy sources is that it will take longer for researchers to really crack each source open and create truly powerful devices that can rival the older non-renewable power plants.
Personally, I see a combination of non-renewable and renewable energy sources as the way into the greener future. We need to slowly get rid of our non-renewable energy sources, to give the necessary time to the researchers (and investors) to fully develop renewable sources.
However, like any new industry, renewable energy is quite, quite expensive. It has taken decades of funding to get to where we are today and it will take decades more to get to where we are going. Over this time, we will spend billions and billions of dollars investing in different and unique ideas - many of which will fail miserably. The same is true for space exploitation. It will take decades and decades for the industry to become fully viable against terrestrial rivals but the goal is well worth the investment. Both are worthy goals and both should be fully supported. Regardless of that fact, both industries are tar-pits that people keep stuffing money down with the hope they will eventually get rich (and one day, some one will become quite wealthy).
Quote from: LlumPeak crises aren't about having no more of said material (which is how the media portray it, we aren't going to suddenly have no more oil anywhere), it's about the demand for a resource out-stripping the supply and reserves (and potential reserves) of a material. Essentially we will never be able to use as much of that material as we previously have before. So regardless of recycling we will hit peak metals, because there's only so much of it.
I totally get that, and it's true that it's not renewable in that sense, but since it can be recycled it's fundamentally different from other non-renewable resources like fossil fuels, which will not only peak but which we can actually run out of and never recover under rational timescales. All I'm saying is that it's conceivable we could sustain a civilization more-or-less indefinitely even while remaining dependent on metals. There would be major challenges, our population would
have to stop growing, we'd have to become efficient at recycling, and we'd need to build to last whenever possible, but it's conceivable. On the other hand we can't sustain a civilization if we remain dependent on more broadly defined non-renewable sources which we can neither recycle nor simply dig up more of.
Quote from: Elemental ElfPersonally, I see a combination of non-renewable and renewable energy sources as the way into the greener future. We need to slowly get rid of our non-renewable energy sources, to give the necessary time to the researchers (and investors) to fully develop renewable sources.
THIS.
Quote from: ibidRegardless of that fact, both industries are tar-pits that people keep stuffing money down with the hope they will eventually get rich
This is undoubtedly true for a great many people. In the case of Planetary Resources, I feel like there might be a bit more to it than the profit motive. This could be naive, but I feel like a lot of the people they've got behind the project aren't there solely for the money - they're more interested in blazing a trail, being pioneers, being the first ones to do something big, etc. There's something big R Romantic about the whole thing.
Quote from: SteerpikeAll I'm saying is that it's conceivable we could sustain a civilization more-or-less indefinitely even while remaining dependent on metals.
I really disagree here, unless we reduce our population, by at least half. In 20 years we're supposed to have 9 billion people, at least that's what is projected. As it stands the only countries with non-positive birthrates are first world ones. So ideally once the whole world is past developing (which isn't going to happen unless we get some kind of global government to keep everything in check, because there will always be some country ahead of the others), or at least to some kind of baseline similar to what we consider a developed country today.
That being said, if/when we reach this point we're going to have a surplus of probably 9-15 billion people. That amount of people is not sustainable in any shape of form on Earth. Most people in the world have little/no use of metal at all, no access to electronics, no cars, no metal buildings, no skyscrapers nothing. There is not enough copper in/on the Earth to give everyone an electric car. And still use copper like we do today. This same principle can be applied to most metals. The solution to this is just to go mine asteroids and other highly concentrated sources of minerals.
Now I don't disagree that it's impossible to have a globally sustainable society, but it's not likely or even plausible in the near or intermediate future. If we want to eventually reach something like this we're going to have to start exploiting resources beyond Earth to give us time to get things together.
On the topic of getting away from coal I personally am all for thorium reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel). Thorium reactors are far more efficient than uranium reactors and use a fuel that is far more abundant (the Earth has thousands of years worth of thorium in it). Additionally due to their design thorium reactors don't go into melt down when they lose power like what happens with the other reactors. They also don't need the huge bulky containment shielding that traditional systems require. They are IMO the next best thing to fusion reactors, which I'd love to see but that technology is in the future while thorium systems can be built right now (if you're wondering why they haven't been built if they're so great... it's because thorium reactors are bad at creating weapons grade uranium as a byproduct).
Regarding the topic at hand personally I am skeptical but optimistic about the whole thing. I'm not sure if they can pull it off. However, if they do the results will be profound for humanity. If you can extract resources from asteroids directly you save huge energy costs (a massive chunk of the millions of dollars it costs to get into space is due to the huge energy expenditure needed to get into orbit). If you combine the ability to store stuff like water up in space and process it into LOX and LH with solar power you basically have orbital gas stations. Combine this with high effeciency spacecraft like SpaceX's Falcon series and sending humans to the moon becomes trivial (and sending them on to mars and the gas giants becomes doable). Mining water in space is HUGE. Water means fuel, and food, and drink, and breathable air, and radiation shielding. If you can bypass the cost of getting water up into orbit you have effectively enabled everyday space travel. The cost to launch plummets since you just need enough fuel to get up into LEO where you can refuel meaning a much lighter and more efficient launch vehicle. Additionally you don't need big huge Saturn V's to send people to the moon or beyond. You just need a little shuttle craft and a couple fueling stations orbiting the Earth and the Moon. Local space travel becomes easy and interplanetary travel becomes much more likely.
Quote from: LlumThere is not enough copper in/on the Earth to give everyone an electric car.
This is a fair point, and I'll readily admit ignorance in terms of the actual amounts of stuff in the earth.
Quote from: LlumAs it stands the only countries with non-positive birthrates are first world ones. So ideally once the whole world is past developing (which isn't going to happen unless we get some kind of global government to keep everything in check, because there will always be some country ahead of the others...
The question of birthrate
is linked to development, but I don't think it's linked to the relative affluence of different nations
per se. As I've heard it told, the best way to diminish the birthrate and achieve zero population growth is to promote:
- feminism, gender equality, and the education of women (more career-oriented women = fewer children; more women with sex education = fewer pregnancies)
- affordable, widely available contraception and education about its use
- pro-choice abortion options for unwanted pregnancies (this goes hand in hand with the above two)
- secularism and progressivism to erode the traditional/patriarchal cultural values that lead to large families and vilify the above three points
Whether or not a world government is required to achieve these things on a global level is an open question. It certainly wouldn't hurt, but my feeling is that by the time a world government is actually feasible, the social trends listed above will already be in place.
Your point, however, that by the time we manage to achieve ZPG we'll just have too many people to sustain ourselves with earth's resources, is a good one, and I'm not sure I have any adequate response for it. All I would contend is that
theoretically one can imagine a stable, sustainable, affluent global society depending on renewable energy and recycling that doesn't require us to eventually leave earth (at least not for an obscenely long time), whereas one
can't imagine a stable, sustainable, affluent global society dependent on (traditional) non-renewable energy, without an extremely well-developed extra-planetary economy, por without us eventually being forced to abandon the earth altogether.
Since, as you point out, our demands are going to outstrip the earth's supply before we get our house in order socially, your point that space exploration is necessary does stand. Point conceded :). Hopefully I've clarified my own position!
EDIT: To reiterate, I'm still 100% pro asteroid-mining!
Also, Nomadic, those thorium reactors sound pretty cool.
>>If we want to eventually reach something like this we're going to have to start exploiting resources beyond Earth to give us time to get things together.
...I sort of fail to see at what price point it becomes cheaper to pay for fuel to send a shuttle up, fuel to dig the resources, then fuel to get the rocks back- than to just dig for minerals under the earth. Unless you have proven rare metals that are extremely expensive, space mining seems to be a poor investment.
I stand with Steerpike's point about there being enough metals on earth for a good long time. Composites can be a good gapfiller and recycling can solve other issues. Llum is correct that there will/can be a point of peak metal--but there are many cheaper solutions than mining for metal on other planets... and using non-renewable fuels to get there.... we wouldn't want to run out of fuels in an attempt to acquire metals.
One amusing consequence of zero population growth... how do you propose to continue capitalism which is about finding new markets and improving productivity... and how do you propose to continue socialism and socialist programs like Medicare and Social Security, which have upfront payment now for older people's lives?
Here are my problems with all of this. First off, our space travelling technology is nowhere nearly advanced enough to possibly make this a viable idea at this time. It will probably be atleast a few centuries before we can make space travel something viable as a "railroading" system in this solar system alone.
Secondly, what about the space politics? I mean you can see what a nightmare it was getting the United States connected to the west via railroads. What if governments started claiming sections of space as their own, or even entire planets? Would there be wars over this?
And thirdly I promise you that if right now is anything akin to what this will be like than there will be nutjobs who think that if we lessen the mass of the asteroids, then that will destabilize our solar system and send us all crashing into the sun.
Quote from: Light Dragon
>>If we want to eventually reach something like this we're going to have to start exploiting resources beyond Earth to give us time to get things together.
...I sort of fail to see at what price point it becomes cheaper to pay for fuel to send a shuttle up, fuel to dig the resources, then fuel to get the rocks back- than to just dig for minerals under the earth. Unless you have proven rare metals that are extremely expensive, space mining seems to be a poor investment.
I stand with Steerpike's point about there being enough metals on earth for a good long time. Composites can be a good gapfiller and recycling can solve other issues. Llum is correct that there will/can be a point of peak metal--but there are many cheaper solutions than mining for metal on other planets... and using non-renewable fuels to get there.... we wouldn't want to run out of fuels in an attempt to acquire metals.
See my points on mining for water in my early post for an explanation for how this becomes a viable option. Water extraction in space is one of the key points to making the jump to an interplanetary society (it's one of the main reasons scientists are constantly looking for water outside earth beyond the obvious connection between water and life). If you can get water in space you effectively overcome a majority of the obstacles to regular space travel.
Quote from: Decomentalist
Here's my problems with all of this. First off, our space travelling technology is nowhere nearly advanced enough to possibly make this a viable idea at this time. It will probably be atleast a few centuries before we can make space travel something viable as a "railroading" system in this solar system alone.
Not to get overly nitpicky about this but, could you cite your sources for this claim? Looking around at all the recent developments in propulsion, power, and long term habitation I'd say that we already have the technology to do this right now. What we lack is monetary incentive and a system efficient enough to go after that incentive both of which can be solved by the current developments in space commercialism (space x, virgin galactic, blue origin, planetary resources, etc).
Quote from: Decomentalist
Secondly, what about the space politics? I mean you can see what a nightmare it was getting the United States connected to the west via railroads. What if governments started claiming sections of space as their own, or even entire planets? Would there be wars over this?
Governments cannot claim any section of space due to the Outer Space Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty)
Quote from: Decomentalist
And thirdly I promise you that if right now is anything akin to what this will be like than there will be nutjobs who think that if we lessen the mass of the asteroids, then that will destabilize our solar system and send us all crashing into the sun.
Fortunately the people running the space industry are engineers, physicists, and so forth all of who would have a field day shredding such claims in front of the public.
Quote from: Light DragonI sort of fail to see at what price point it becomes cheaper to pay for fuel to send a shuttle up, fuel to dig the resources, then fuel to get the rocks back- than to just dig for minerals under the earth. Unless you have proven rare metals that are extremely expensive, space mining seems to be a poor investment.
Unless, as Llum suggests, we run out of metal down here.
Nomadic's excellent points about water are also key to what I've heard Planetary Resources talking about. It's defintiely not just about minerals.
Quote from: Light Dragonhow do you propose to continue capitalism which is about finding new markets and improving productivity... and how do you propose to continue socialism and socialist programs like Medicare and Social Security, which have upfront payment now for older people's lives
I'm not pretending to have all the answers, here, so these are just thoughts. They depend on whether you couple ZPG with other things...
Let's say through some combination of a complete switch to renewable resources, asteroid-mining and the like to help bolster our metal supply, social progress to achieve ZPG, and other measures, we were able to create a sustainable, renewable, stable global society with enough resources for everyone, enough totally renewable supply to meet everyone's needs indefinitely. This society might take a lot of forms. But let's be optimistic for the sake of argument, since we're imagining how the world
might look. While we're being utopian let's imagine that the vast majority, if not all, manual labour has been mechanized, possibly with advanced computers doing a good portion of the world's mental labour as well, possibly not. This would effectively be a post-scarcity society: no need for real jobs, no need for conventional trade as such, no need for war (ideology/religion would be the only things left to fight about, but since the world's economic problems have effectively been solved, ideology loses its claws). Class divisions are erased and hierarchies dissolve. Money becomes defunct. Government withers to a vestige. With the end of poverty, the great majority of crime disappears. Instead of spending their time fighting one another and devoting their lives to drudgery, people devote all of their time to creative pursuits, games, sports, science, altruistic pursuits (medicine etc), or simply enjoying themselves. Competition still exists in an abstract, friendly sense (there will still be star athletes, for example, and there may be limited, localized hierarchies in the vestigial government etc). This is more or less what Wilde is imagining in "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_Under_Socialism) and a kind of localized, planterary version of Iain Bank's Culture (http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm). This is, of course, a mid-to-far-future, idealistic society. It's essentially a communist one, but emphatically
not in the coercive authoritarian Stalinist/Maoist sense, but in the classic Marxist sense, which is basically hedonistic, utilitarian, and anti-authoritarian.
Less optimistically and far more realistically, if we imagine the ZPG but not the paradigm-changing energy technologies or the mechanized labour, we're in for a more interesting time, but it would still be a way better future than one in which our population continues its rampant expansion. Capitalism would increasingly do what it's always done to some extent - try to inculcate new desires and thus create new markets, as opposed to simply responding to the needs of the people.
I'd point to my own country's cost-effective and mostly superb healthcare system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_healthcare) and similar systems found elsewhere as the most efficient, sensible, sustainable, and ethical approach to healthcare. Mostly, individuals aren't involved in billing and reclaim. The costs are pretty much entirely paid for by income tax. So the question "how do we continue the program" is the same as asking how a government continues any program paid for by tax, such as defense. Presumably, even if we hit ZPG, people still have jobs with incomes (again, paradigm-changing technologies aside!), so we'd still pay tax, so healthcare would still be paid for. With an aging population that healthcare might become more expensive, but since people are far more willing to come in to get checked out early (as opposed to a private system, where if they're poor they may try to avoid going to the doctor), a publicly funded system is still way more efficient. There's no need to worry about up-front costs and like because the entire system is universal and paid for through the public fund, with the costs thus shared by everyone according to their ability to contribute (progressive taxation).
EDIT:
QuoteFirst off, our space travelling technology is nowhere nearly advanced enough to possibly make this a viable idea at this time.
We won't develop the technology if we don't start... developing the technology. Technology doesn't just emerge
ex nihilo, it has to be developed. These sorts of ambitious projects, in the absence of adequately funded government ones, are what will develop the technology.
PPS I'm a bit grumpy today so sorry if that has bled into my posts! They're intended in the most friendly/amiable light possible.
Quote from: Nomadic
Quote from: Decomentalist
Here's my problems with all of this. First off, our space travelling technology is nowhere nearly advanced enough to possibly make this a viable idea at this time. It will probably be atleast a few centuries before we can make space travel something viable as a "railroading" system in this solar system alone.
Not to get overly nitpicky about this but, could you cite your sources for this claim? Looking around at all the recent developments in propulsion, power, and long term habitation I'd say that we already have the technology to do this right now. What we lack is monetary incentive and a system efficient enough to go after that incentive both of which can be solved by the current developments in space commercialism (space x, virgin galactic, blue origin, planetary resources, etc).
Quote from: Decomentalist
Secondly, what about the space politics? I mean you can see what a nightmare it was getting the United States connected to the west via railroads. What if governments started claiming sections of space as their own, or even entire planets? Would there be wars over this?
Governments cannot claim any section of space due to the Outer Space Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty)
Quote from: Decomentalist
And thirdly I promise you that if right now is anything akin to what this will be like than there will be nutjobs who think that if we lessen the mass of the asteroids, then that will destabilize our solar system and send us all crashing into the sun.
Fortunately the people running the space industry are engineers, physicists, and so forth all of who would have a field day shredding such claims in front of the public.
Hopefully your right on the last two issues, but if the goal of all of this is to save on earths resources, then I can't see space travel working with our current technology, maybe I'm overstating when I say "a few centuries" but right now I just can't see it working with how many resources it would take to get to the asteroids in the first place, mine them, and then take them back to earth, and were not even taking into account all of the labor safety issues.
Quote from: Decomentalist
Hopefully your right on the last two issues, but if the goal of all of this is to save on earths resources, then I can't see space travel working with our current technology, maybe I'm overstating when I say "a few centuries" but right now I just can't see it working with how many resources it would take to get to the asteroids in the first place, mine them, and then take them back to earth, and were not even taking into account all of the labor safety issues.
It wouldn't take many resources at all. We've already been to a couple asteroids. Getting to these asteroids requires fewer resources than going to the moon. Also there are no labor safety issues regarding the mining. You don't mine asteroids with people, you use robots. And before you ask, yes robotics is at a point where we could build robots smart enough to do this :)
The issue isn't getting to an asteroid so much as it is weight v. fuel, nomadic. If you add weight... you need to add a great deal more fuel. I would like to see the financials work and I think they *might* be able to work at some point, but it doesn't seem doable right now.
>>See my points on mining for water in my early post for an explanation for how this becomes a viable option. Water extraction in space is one of the key points to making the jump to an interplanetary society (it's one of the main reasons scientists are constantly looking for water outside earth beyond the obvious connection between water and life). If you can get water in space you effectively overcome a majority of the obstacles to regular space travel.
Your comments on water as a potential fuel source seemed to be a demonstration of how the technology isn't there yet. When do you think that would be technologically possible? 10 years- 20- 50? It's not viable now, that's for certain.
QuoteLet's say through some combination of a complete switch to renewable resources, asteroid-mining and the like to help bolster our metal supply, social progress to achieve ZPG, and other measures, we were able to create a sustainable, renewable, stable global society with enough resources for everyone, enough totally renewable supply to meet everyone's needs indefinitely. This society might take a lot of forms. But let's be optimistic for the sake of argument, since we're imagining how the world might look. While we're being utopian let's imagine that the vast majority, if not all, manual labour has been mechanized, possibly with advanced computers doing a good portion of the world's mental labour as well, possibly not. This would effectively be a post-scarcity society: no need for real jobs, no need for conventional trade as such, no need for war (ideology/religion would be the only things left to fight about, but since the world's economic problems have effectively been solved, ideology loses its claws). Class divisions are erased and hierarchies dissolve. Money becomes defunct. Government withers to a vestige. With the end of poverty, the great majority of crime disappears. Instead of spending their time fighting one another and devoting their lives to drudgery, people devote all of their time to creative pursuits, games, sports, science, altruistic pursuits (medicine etc), or simply enjoying themselves. Competition still exists in an abstract, friendly sense (there will still be star athletes, for example, and there may be limited, localized hierarchies in the vestigial government etc). This is more or less what Wilde is imagining in "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" and a kind of localized, planterary version of Iain Bank's Culture. This is, of course, a mid-to-far-future, idealistic society. It's essentially a communist one, but emphatically not in the coercive authoritarian Stalinist/Maoist sense, but in the classic Marxist sense, which is basically hedonistic, utilitarian, and anti-authoritarian.
That's also not possible. I appreciate the reference though and I'd love to read that! (No time now, but I hope to be able to sit down and think through these articles :))
As I may have mentioned before- That Hideous Strength by CS Lewis and Brave New World by Huxley are some books that I find fascinating on a similar topic... And Brave New World IS a utopia- I like that society, which sounds similar to Wilde's. But it's not possible to sustain that society- resources are limited (and in a difference from Wilde's society- creativity is constrained, which can lead to atrophy). Even if something like the Singularity were to happen- we live in a finite resource world and even if asteroids are mined- that's still a finite number of resources that will be distributed in an unequal fashion because certain people take risks to extract them, therefore they should be rewarded in kind.
QuoteLess optimistically and far more realistically, if we imagine the ZPG but not the paradigm-changing energy technologies or the mechanized labour, we're in for a more interesting time, but it would still be a way better future than one in which our population continues its rampant expansion. Capitalism would increasingly do what it's always done to some extent - try to inculcate new desires and thus create new markets, as opposed to simply responding to the needs of the people.
Maybe and maybe not. Captalism has proved to be a remarkably adaptable and remarkably good economic system; still, I'm skeptical if Welfare State Capitalism at least can exist in a zero-population growth world. World government and life in a world like that (well, after about 1 generation in that world) certainly wouldn't look anything like it does today. And yet, I would also foresee rationing similar to rationing in a ++population growth world...the rationing would just happen a generation or two later.
Quote
I'd point to my own country's cost-effective and mostly superb healthcare system and similar systems found elsewhere as the most efficient, sensible, sustainable, and ethical approach to healthcare. Mostly, individuals aren't involved in billing and reclaim. The costs are pretty much entirely paid for by income tax. So the question "how do we continue the program" is the same as asking how a government continues any program paid for by tax, such as defense. Presumably, even if we hit ZPG, people still have jobs with incomes (again, paradigm-changing technologies aside!), so we'd still pay tax, so healthcare would still be paid for. With an aging population that healthcare might become more expensive, but since people are far more willing to come in to get checked out early (as opposed to a private system, where if they're poor they may try to avoid going to the doctor), a publicly funded system is still way more efficient. There's no need to worry about up-front costs and like because the entire system is universal and paid for through the public fund, with the costs thus shared by everyone according to their ability to contribute (progressive taxation).
People still have jobs with incomes, yes. But the pool of potential workers decreases, creating issues that are faced by Japan and European countries. To sustain the same level of benefits for new retiring workers they either need to : a. increase the population of workers (by births or by forcing people to retire at age 70 rather than 62/65) or b. increase productivity of workers (by new tech like computers or longer work days), or c. raise the tax rate to accommodate.
I'd rather not get into a discussion of health care. I understand how you see it as related, but I worry that it will cause this thread to divert to a major tangent. :)
Quote from: Light Dragon
The issue isn't getting to an asteroid so much as it is weight v. fuel, nomadic. If you add weight... you need to add a great deal more fuel. I would like to see the financials work and I think they *might* be able to work at some point, but it doesn't seem doable right now.
Where are you getting these claims from. Again need some sources cited here. Where is it required that we have to launch something so heavy that it uses so much fuel that it wouldn't be possible to do this?
The metals themselves are heavy. And to transport heavy things, you need more fuel... which adds cost. And then you need more fuel to carry the extra fuel. http://science.howstuffworks.com/rocket2.htm
And on payload, for background information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29
Ok. And Ars Techinca seems to have had an in-depth discussion on this issue: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1172636, with people on both sides of the issue. Bottom line is- this isn't economically viable now. Remember, SpaceX took about 7 years (?) to get off the ground, and even though it is "private", the people pushing it through benefit greatly due to tax breaks (like many other industries, admittedly) and subsidies. Without those breaks for this asteroid mining and without resource costs massively higher than they are today- the financials don't work.
Maybe after some technology development, and I see that some people seem to think that "dragging" asteroids may have some viability, but there are a great many technological issues to solve. If we all want to dream, then yes, it would be interesting. And if private people want to spend their own money, then fine. But until they solve the fuel problem and/or the problem of what to do with properly transferring/exploiting an asteroid that has been dragged back to earth, the money is just going down a black hole. One of those two problems needs to be solved before asteroid mining is viable.
Quote from: Light Dragon
The metals themselves are heavy. And to transport heavy things, you need more fuel... which adds cost. And then you need more fuel to carry the extra fuel. http://science.howstuffworks.com/rocket2.htm
And on payload, for background information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29
I'm not sure if you've fully read up on their plans (I also suspect you're looking at this with the current NASA style model in mind which doesn't work here this is a whole other beast). Step 1 of the actual mining phase involves harvesting water. They don't have to buy the fuel, they mine it. They then use it for resale to people like NASA and SpaceX to make bank and for their own craft for transporting materials to and from Earth. Once again read my first post (the part that talks about water). Also it doesn't take a fraction of the energy to de-orbit that it does to get up into orbit. The reason ships like the Saturn V or the Shuttle require such absolutely massive thrusters is to get into space. Your asteroid operation is already in space and it has access to ridiculous amounts of water for cheaply fueling the trip back (and further launches). As a result you can launch small cheap ships to transport all your supplies.
Case in point here about the amount of fuel required just to get into orbit: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#12 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#12)
Quote
Q. How fast does a Shuttle travel? What is its altitude? How much fuel does it use?
A. Like any other object in low-Earth orbit, a Space Shuttle must reach speeds of about 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 kilometers per hour) to remain in orbit. The exact speed depends on the Space Shuttle's orbital altitude, which normally ranges from 190 miles to 330 miles (304 kilometers to 528 kilometers) above sea level, depending on its mission.
Each of the two Solid Rocket Boosters on the Space Shuttle carries more than one million pounds of solid propellant. The Space Shuttle's large External Tank is loaded with more than 500,000 gallons of super-cold liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, which are mixed and burned together to form the fuel for the orbiter's three main rocket engines.
That's 2 million pounds of solid propellant and 500,000 gallons of LOX/LH just to get the initial boost, the orbiter burns additional fuel from its onboard tank to complete the orbital insertion. The small remainder of fuel left is enough for everything else including its deorbit. Lets also note that the orbiter is like 75 tons empty. It isn't a light thing.
Quote from: Nomadic
Quote from: Decomentalist
Hopefully your right on the last two issues, but if the goal of all of this is to save on earths resources, then I can't see space travel working with our current technology, maybe I'm overstating when I say "a few centuries" but right now I just can't see it working with how many resources it would take to get to the asteroids in the first place, mine them, and then take them back to earth, and were not even taking into account all of the labor safety issues.
It wouldn't take many resources at all. We've already been to a couple asteroids. Also there are no labor safety issues. You don't mine asteroids with people, you use robots. And before you ask, yes robotics is at a point where we could build robots smart enough to do this :)
Fair enough. Robotics was immediately where my mind went when I was trying to figure out if this is logical or not.
Quote from: Nomadic
Quote from: Light Dragon
The metals themselves are heavy. And to transport heavy things, you need more fuel... which adds cost. And then you need more fuel to carry the extra fuel. http://science.howstuffworks.com/rocket2.htm
And on payload, for background information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29
I'm not sure if you've fully read up on their plans (I also suspect you're looking at this with the current NASA style model in mind which doesn't work here this is a whole other beast).
You are correct. I am mainly approaching this from the NASA style-point of view.
However, Regarding their new plan, I've heard a little and it mostly seems silly. I read your post and I would appreciate a link to explain more of the science. Based on your post (here and above), the plan still seems silly and unlikely, but I am willing to read more.
>>Step 1 of the actual mining phase involves harvesting water. They don't have to buy the fuel, they mine it.
I don't see how water alone would be good enough. They'd have to heat it and have combustion. We don't have 100% hydrogen fuel tanks on rockets now. Why would hydrogen fueled tanks be better in space? You don't have to worry about a gravity well and lift drag (which is where massive amounts of fuel are burned), so it is a BETTER idea than the current NASA modus operandi, so it is a BETTER project to spend money on developing the robotics for and the lift vehicles for, but it's still nowhere near feasible in the near term (under 10 years). Now, if you're saying "yay- in 40 or so years (mid to far range future) we can do this commercially if we build the vehicles now (~2-8 year timeframe [look at development times for the SpaceX rockets, etc.]; and perfect the rock extraction technology with remote control and sensing [it would have to be better than the mars landers and mars rovers] (~2-15 year timeframe), then after the initial success-to scale up to commercial would take an additional few years...not to count travel time to asteroids... 1/2 a year to 3 years??? depending on which ones you deal with"- then you may have a point :)
Water is made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen yes? These are the two components of a liquid rocket engine like the ones on the shuttle. To split water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water) into LOX and LH you mainly just need energy (which can be gathered with solar panels). The water itself isn't the propellent it's what is used to make the propellent. And no I'm not saying we're gonna be mining the solar system in a couple years, but to say that it couldn't happen inside a couple hundred is I think not giving enough credit to human ingenuity and tenacity. I would have written these guys completely off except that they are taking realistic steps (starting with a small space telescope program to track asteroids, followed by prospecting, followed by mining water to create the fuel needed, finally ending with full scale mining). This is something that is going to be decades long from conception to realization. However it isn't something that we lack the ability to do within our lifetime. On the final point they seem to be focusing on near Earth asteroids. We're talking about days to weeks to a few months tops to make a trip, not years. The guys off in the asteroid belt are for later.
As to the science well to start I'd probably read through their full site (http://www.planetaryresources.com/) to get an idea of what all they are planning. From there there are a number of resources you can look at regarding the science and technology behind this. This (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/) is a great site to start with. NASA of course is another good resource. Regarding engine efficiency you might take a look at articles on Ion propulsion and space refueling. Robotics is probably something else that is going to factor heavily into this venture too.
And to end this all let's be clear, I'm skeptical about this. I hope it works out but I'm still in doubt as to whether it will. However, this isn't doubt from the science, their science as far as I can see is sound. This is doubt more from the corporate side, it requires investors willing to wait years for RoI and a serious commitment. Time will tell if they can pull it off.
Quote from: Light DragonEven if something like the Singularity were to happen- we live in a finite resource world and even if asteroids are mined- that's still a finite number of resources that will be distributed in an unequal fashion because certain people take risks to extract them, therefore they should be rewarded in kind.
This is where the idea of renewable resources on a mass scale come in. For Banks, we're talking Dyson spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere) and the like (more realistically, solar sails, Dyson swarms, etc) coming in. This is clearly really far-future - obviously not in anyone's lifetime, barring world-altering longevity technology. But one can imagine hypothetical civilizations where the idea of a monetary/material "reward" is totally nonsensical. Even if people still have to take risks to get resources (which in a world of semi-sentient or fully sentient machines isn't a necessity at all), those rewards might take the form of status, reputation, heroism, etc, as opposed to material rewards. When everyone has everything material they conceivably could want or need, the profit motive falls by the wayside.
This is science fiction. It's not happening anytime soon. The question is in what direction we want to move towards.
Brave New World is an interesting but screwy example. The people in BNW are all permanently drugged-up mindwashed automata, whereas those in Banks' utopia are highly free-willed, individualistic badasses. I'll take Banks' Culture any day. The closer we can get to that kind of state of being, the better, for my two space-credits!
It's clear that for the short term, at least, we're stuck with hierarchies, money, and the wretched realities of labour, though, at least for awhile.
[spoiler=Filthy Socialist Rant]
Quote from: Light DragonCaptalism has proved to be a remarkably adaptable and remarkably good economic system
This might degenerate into the wrong type of debate, but I'd dispute this.
Capitalism has really only been around for 200 years. It's done some amazingly, amazingly good things. It put the final nails in the coffin of the bizarre and horrifically unjust feudal/absolutist system, it industrialized our economy, it led to a much greater quality of life for everyone, it facilitated a tremendous amount of invention, and created an enormous amount of wealth. All tremendously good things.
But capitalism hardly has an untarnished history. Take the Great Famine in Ireland. The reason that famine occurred was, in no small measure, because of the dependency on potatoes, which in turn was caused by the small size of plots, which was the result of landlords dividing up their land to maximize profits from rent. The famine was hideously exacerbated as
merchants continued to export food during even the worst years of the famine. Some historians have shown that for some foodstuffs, exports actually
increased. With mass unemployment and poverty in Ireland, people had no money to buy food, so merchants simply shipped the food to better markets. 25% of the population - a million people - died. Now one could argue that all sorts of factors conspired to create this bad situation, and that capitalism is hardly the sole culprit - that's totally true, and I'm not trying to lay the famine solely at the feet of capitalism. But it really,
really didn't help. Profits were put before people, with disastrous results. Government regulation, intervention (export bans, government projects for employment), and increased workers' rights and wages would have hugely mitigated the catastrophe.
I'm sure the same thing couldn't happen today, but this sort of thing is part of capitalism's history. It has its strengths, and it's important not to forget them, but it isn't
always "remarkably good."[/spoiler]
EDIT: I just realized I'm posting about the Irish potato famine in a thread that's supposed to be about space mining. Feel free to ignore the above!
This link (http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/120424-asteroid-mining-venture.html) seems to do a fairly good job at explaining the current plans and aims of Planetary Resources (although I admittedly only skimmed it), with the most important point being that they themselves say that it will be quite a while before they start actually mining asteroids!
I think that putting all this in a capitalist and resource-scarcity framework is a natural reaction for people of this day and age, but also, quite frankly, a wrong way to look at it. Consider that this is a venture backed by the guy who made the two highest-grossing movies ever AND the guy who invented (at least half of) Google. Freakin' Google, people. With the risk of sounding overly optimistic and naive, I don't believe these people do this for the money. They do it because it is a new frontier, both technologically and (exo-)geographically; essentially the perfect thing to get a deep-sea explorer/idealist artist and a computer scientist excited.
Also, as the article mentioned above, they have no delusions about just going up there and mining rocks. This is a project, and more than anything I believe it is about building up a space infrastructure. Because, well, if we always sit around waiting for the perfect moment we are never going to get anywhere.
So is it economically viable? Who knows. I'm not sure they care. But the calculations we can make today might not even be viable in 5 year's time. It all depends on the technology, a notoriously fickle historical factor. From what I understand the real cost is reaching escape velocity and reaching outer space/stable orbit, so if we can just minimize the amount of stuff and energy (in whatever form) we need to send up there, I can't see why we shouldn't be able to come up with a viable business scheme eventually. With the infrastructure in place, and with no (human) personnel, fuel, maintenance and materials are the only things we actually need to send skywards and we can probably just send all the mined goodness hurling back to earth through the atmosphere in a protected casing with a minimum of propulsion and padding. These are metals we are talking about, not delicate electronics nor soft humans. (although kinetic bombs are supposedly a legit concept, so maybe we should invest in parachutes)
PS: do you think James Cameron actually sided with the mining corporation in Avatar?
Thank you, Crow, for saying exactly what I've been trying to say, but far more eloquently!
Quote from: Superfluous CrowPS: do you think James Cameron actually sided with the mining corporation in Avatar?
Not to mention the shades of Weyland-Yutani present in all this :P.
Quote from: Steerpike
Thank you, Crow, for saying exactly what I've been trying to say, but far more eloquently!
Quote from: Superfluous CrowPS: do you think James Cameron actually sided with the mining corporation in Avatar?
Not to mention the shades of Weyland-Yutani present in all this :P.
Heh now that Cameron has lived The Abyss he's recreating Avatar. Next thing we know he'll be building an ocean liner and ramming it into an iceberg... or investing in hunter-killer robots...
Quote
As to the science well to start I'd probably read through their full site to get an idea of what all they are planning. From there there are a number of resources you can look at regarding the science and technology behind this. This is a great site to start with. NASA of course is another good resource. Regarding engine efficiency you might take a look at articles on Ion propulsion and space refueling. Robotics is probably something else that is going to factor heavily into this venture too.
And to end this all let's be clear, I'm skeptical about this. I hope it works out but I'm still in doubt as to whether it will. However, this isn't doubt from the science, their science as far as I can see is sound. This is doubt more from the corporate side, it requires investors willing to wait years for RoI and a serious commitment. Time will tell if they can pull it off.
Thank you. I have read your links and Crows'... although I've seen that atomic rockets site before... I don't trust it. These ideas are about as pie in the sky as the National Space Society questionable dreaming about permanent habitat moon bases for a functioning and self-sustainable society in 30 years, etc. Or the constant discussion about space hotels that have been promised since what, the 1970s? That is not to say they are impossible, just that the technology needs to develop for it to be financially responsible.
What I think we agree on though is that these fellows at least have a plan with logical steps and that they are being realistic to some degree about the timeline and the steps necessary it will take to achieve certain goals...they are dreaming big. What concerns me is if they reach a point where they go and beg governments for money for this task. As long as they spend their own money, that's fine. As I may have stated before, I'm a big believer in exploration, R & D... but I prefer that science takes logical steps. e.g. Worried about pressurization? Explore undersea first to test at what is hopefully a cheaper price!; worried about robotics- develop them first to work on earth at long distances remotely, etc. Essentially, I foresee this taking a lot longer than they plan, or that they fail, so I'm not going to be investing any of my own money :D. That being said, I wish them lots of luck in their development. :) If it does work as they hope, then it will be very interesting.
I was very negative on the end-game of the development because frankly, it's not financially possible now, or in 5 years or even likely in 10. But maybe, just maybe it will be in 20 or 30. It's like when oil companies invest in long-term R&D for deep sea drilling. Eventually there may be a payoff.
Quote from: Light Dragon
Worried about pressurization? Explore undersea first to test at what is hopefully a cheaper price!; worried about robotics- develop them first to work on earth at long distances remotely, etc.
I suspect that this is one of the reasons why they brought Cameron onboard, he has extensive experience with stuff like this.
My feeling is that the question "can it be done?" is far more important than "is it profitable?" at this stage. Even if a ton of money goes into an endeavor which isn't initially profitable per se that's still not money wasted if they manage to actually pull off any kind of asteroid mining, since the research they do and the stuff they build will pave the way for future, more commercially viable endeavors. And if they fail spectacularly? Well, future space pioneers will learn from their failures; the next time someone attempts something similar, they won't make the same mistakes.
I'm less about ZPG and more about NPG; we should be shrinking our population, ideally to a carefully managed, highly educated "paragon" society. That is a good goal. It's also a Cheo brand pipe dream, so make of that what you will.
Meanwhile, I dream that advancements in computer technology (or, hopefully, a more powerful technology that will usher in a post-computing age) can remove the need for humans to enter orbit and "mine" at all. As mentioned on page 1 (skipped page 2, just realized), hauling fuel and water and whatnot up to support humans is a problem. Additionally, since artificial gravity is, from my educational POV, fictional there's the problem of human degradation in orbit / out-of-orbit. A stop-gap would be to engineer a new phenotype (or species) that has systems made to function well in low gravity. Another would be mechanical implants or biological enhancements to improve current human performance in orbit. Neither of these are ideal, though - you still have the issue of needing to spend resources to bring them resources to eat. There's corporate profits at stake here, and all cost savings are good savings.
A possible middle ground would be an especially fit and adaptable human overseeing part AI, part manually controlled systems in case we need a "thinking" brain on site. Hell, maybe it'll literally be a brain - we've already managed to use a mouse brain to control a robot. Once we perfect that technology there's less of an issue with body degradation. Nobody has to sacrifice their life to pull this off in that case.
I think I had some other point to make but I can't remember. I'll throw it up here later, if I do. In any event, there's a golden-age scenario to chew on.
M.
Quote from: CheA possible middle ground would be an especially fit and adaptable human overseeing part AI, part manually controlled systems in case we need a "thinking" brain on site.
Ever seen Moon? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twuScTcDP_Q) One of the best SF films of the last decade for my money, and kind of a version of what you're talking about.
EDIT: Negative population growth would be ideal, though it could bring with it a slew of problems while the population shrinks.
Quote from: Contumelious Che
Additionally, since artificial gravity is, from my educational POV, fictional there's the problem of human degradation in orbit / out-of-orbit. A stop-gap would be to engineer a new phenotype (or species) that has systems made to function well in low gravity. Another would be mechanical implants or biological enhancements to improve current human performance in orbit. Neither of these are ideal, though - you still have the issue of needing to spend resources to bring them resources to eat. There's corporate profits at stake here, and all cost savings are good savings.
You can cheat gravity with centrifugal force by spinning a ship. Requires a fairly large ship to make it practical, but hey assuming we're mining asteroids we can build em large. Of course these wouldn't be for mining but rather for colonization and moving between colonies (or heck for use as space based colonies themselves if the ship is large enough). Personally if this happened I'd want to ride on one just so I could pull a dave bowman and go running along it :D
Hi Steerpike-
[spoiler]
Quote"Capitalism has proved to be a remarkably adaptable and remarkably good economic system"
This might degenerate into the wrong type of debate, but I'd dispute this.
Capitalism has really only been around for 200 years. It's done some amazingly, amazingly good things. It put the final nails in the coffin of the bizarre and horrifically unjust feudal/absolutist system, it industrialized our economy, it led to a much greater quality of life for everyone, it facilitated a tremendous amount of invention, and created an enormous amount of wealth. All tremendously good things.
But capitalism hardly has an untarnished history.
I think you read a little much in my statement. I didn't say that Capitalism was perfect in all senses. I did say it was remarkably adaptable and remarkably good. Compared to Mercantilism or Communism, it's 100% better for increasing wealth and quality of life across the board (even for the poorest). And when you add in Welfare-State Capitalism hybrids, you can even convince some Socialist people that some amounts of Capitalism is good :).
QuoteTake the Great Famine in Ireland. The reason that famine occurred was, in no small measure, because of the dependency on potatoes, which in turn was caused by the small size of plots, which was the result of landlords dividing up their land to maximize profits from rent. The famine was hideously exacerbated as merchants continued to export food during even the worst years of the famine. Some historians have shown that for some foodstuffs, exports actually increased. With mass unemployment and poverty in Ireland, people had no money to buy food, so merchants simply shipped the food to better markets. 25% of the population - a million people - died. Now one could argue that all sorts of factors conspired to create this bad situation, and that capitalism is hardly the sole culprit - that's totally true, and I'm not trying to lay the famine solely at the feet of capitalism. But it really, really didn't help. Profits were put before people, with disastrous results. Government regulation, intervention (export bans, government projects for employment), and increased workers' rights and wages would have hugely mitigated the catastrophe.
I'm sure the same thing couldn't happen today, but this sort of thing is part of capitalism's history. It has its strengths, and it's important not to forget them, but it isn't always "remarkably good."
I'm also of the understanding that politics and the introduction of a non-native cash crop played a very large part in that particular Irish situation.
The best point you made here was that in that particular situation Capitalism's stop-gap didn't function. That is, when food became scarce in Ireland, it should have become better to sell the potatoes domestically rather than to export. But Irish people lacked capital. Why did they lack capital? The profits were concentrated in rich people and they did not trickle down properly because the rich people were absentee landlords who lived in Britain and spent money there. (If I understand correctly)
I wonder what liquidity the Irish farmers had; that is, how much they could borrow in terms of debt. It also seems that they were essentially working as slaves rather than as independent workers... since they were paying profits to pay off their debts-- essentially it seems that they were so leveraged that there was an issue-- and that never should have happened. There is a difference between Managed Capitalism (with taxes and regulations and controls) and Laissez Faire Capitalism. (once again why I stated Capitalism is adaptable)
There is a lesson in the Irish situation though for current years though, I'll admit- debt burdens and the lack of capital in one country can lead to poverty. A similar situation may have happened in Africa post-colonialism. Africans mostly lacked education (I understand that in the Dutch Congo after decolonization there were less than 50 native College-educated persons... former British territories fared better.. and Leopold Sedar Senghor in a French territory was a well-respected Poet), and Africans lacked capital, but they had resources. So they exported them... then the money was hoarded and shipped abroad rather than invested at home. This is a valuable lesson for countries that are leveraging debt... some capital must remain for potential investment. When debt reaches a critical mass... then the society's chance to create wealth disappears.
And once again, one or two or three examples don't prove that Capitalism is a horrible system or that any other system is better than it. Almost any system has a few potential weak points-the key is to choose the system with the least problematic weak points for the particular social structure that is in place at that particular time. :)
So ultimately, I don't think you even really disagree with me that Capitalism is a better system that almost any other system currently extant--especially if I define Capitalism widely enough to include Welfare-state capitalism and Market-Regulationist capitalism (which abhors monopolies both private and public). Is that at least somewhat correct?
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Light Dragon]Yeah, that's totally fair - I wouldn't say Capitalism is a horrible system, and the Socialists/Marxists who think it is just haven't read their Marx very well. Marx loved capitalism, he just saw it as the penultimate step. His criticism of capitalism derives from his reading of it as containing an element of inevitable exploitation; while it's still better than everything that came before, modern capitalist nations, while incredibly affluent, are often left with vast disparities of wealth and an alienated labouring class (and increasingly an alienated middle class as well), which seems to undermine the idea that the market produces anything like a meritocracy, among other things. This is a problem I think modern capitalism, in its multifarious forms, is still hugely struggling with.
I won't pretend to be exceptionally well-read on economic matters, but my particular thinking on the subject is that a well-regulated mixed economy is indeed best, tending towards the social market variety. I'd point to places like Germany and Norway (and to a considerable extent Canada) as broad examples of the kind of economy I see as being healthiest given current global conditions - all places with extremely high standards of living, little poverty, and generally low unemployment. This model seems to correct some of major problems and suffering capitalism can sometimes cause while also allowing for plenty of economic growth. I confess to being a bit of a utilitarian - the greatest good for the greatest number, and all that. The "goal" for me, for civilization, should be increasing everyone's quality of life, leisure time, opportunity for happiness, etc as much as possible for as many as possible.
I do feel that technology and other global conditions could still be a game-changer, though. I don't think that any one economic system is more "natural" than another or better reflective of "human nature," as some (both capitalists and socialists) might argue. That kind of thinking feels too essentialist; after all, people (notably Hobbes) used to argue that absolute monarchism was reflective of human nature. Instead I'd argue for tailoring an economic system towards a particular place, time, and technology level. I'm not saying you'd disagree with any of this - I'm just musing.
EDIT: Maybe someone should start an economics thread. Or would that violate some of the site's policy?
Wow. Most fascinating thread in a while.
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: CheA possible middle ground would be an especially fit and adaptable human overseeing part AI, part manually controlled systems in case we need a "thinking" brain on site.
Ever seen Moon? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twuScTcDP_Q) One of the best SF films of the last decade for my money, and kind of a version of what you're talking about.
EDIT: Negative population growth would be ideal, though it could bring with it a slew of problems while the population shrinks.
I have not, however it looks like I should check it out. Thanks!
M.