Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Harbinger2001 t1_iy8dlkr wrote

Reply to comment by ajabardar1 in How will the space economy alter society? by Gari_305

I really doubt we are even close to a post-scarcity society, and even more that space will help get us there. We already have far more resources than we need here on Earth. There is little value in mining and bringing down additional ores from space.

0

ajabardar1 t1_iy8l8vi wrote

depends on a single factor. do you want humanity to be imprisoned on earth or do you want humanity to colonize space. if you choose earth prison then yes we have more than enough resources. if you choose colonize space then no, we don't have enough resources.

but i enjoy that you said we aren't close to a post-scarcity society, and then you say we have far more resources than we need here on earth at the same time.

3

Harbinger2001 t1_iy8u9g6 wrote

Colonizing space requires a compelling reason for the colonists to endure the hardships required. Since the resources can’t be profitably repatriated to benefit Earth, there must be some other reason found.

And just because Earth still has vast resources doesn’t make it ‘post-scarcity’ which requires advances in power generation, automation and social structures that have nothing to do with resource availability.

2

ajabardar1 t1_iy8v819 wrote

why can't the resources be profitable?

astronauts go into space all the time, mostly for human progress.

2

Harbinger2001 t1_iy97gzl wrote

Fewer than 600 people have been to space. Colonization requires a whole new level of heavy lift capability and a destination worth going to. We are going to have nothing but government funded temporary staffed outposts for the forceable future. For people to permanently move, there needs to be a reason for them to go.

As for the resources, the issue it you have to have a customer for them. The only customers are on Earth and no space-based ore extraction can compete on price. On the flip-side, no Earth based extraction can compete for space construction, but that market will be minuscule in comparison. So it can be profitable- but not if we’re talking ‘benefit to Earth’

1

ajabardar1 t1_iy99mjg wrote

and how many are at this very moment in line for a chance to go? how many applicants for astronaut does nasa get every year? how many does chinese space agency?

there have been 600 people in space not because lack of willing candidates that is for sure.

depends massively on the future pricing of mining ore on earth. one can even deduce that needed regulatory restrictions on environmental damaging mining operations is a must have if we want to keep the earth habitable for humans.

unless you think everyone should either live in a cave or reduce the number of people by 90%.

2

BKGPrints t1_iy91qxk wrote

>but i enjoy that you said we aren't close to a post-scarcity society, and then you say we have far more resources than we need here on earth at the same time.<

He's right on that, though. The scarcity that we deal with today is artificial scarcity.

But I disagree with him that there isn't value or opportunity with being in space.

1

ajabardar1 t1_iy92mns wrote

yes that is the reason i enjoyed it. because its true, we could live in a post-scarcity society right now. but investors must be kept happy, so we don't. kind of spoiled these investors, wouldn't you agree? like babies, they are, to whom we must cater and obey, getting them fatter and fatter by the day.

1

Red_Aurora1917 t1_iy9aaxq wrote

We will never achieve a post-scarcity society under our current economic model which fundamentally *encourages* artificial scarcity. See: diamonds, housing, and food production to name a few. "post-scarcity" is incompatible with capitalism.

1

ajabardar1 t1_iy9ds58 wrote

that is a given. unless we fundamentally change our economic model there will be no post-scarcity society. space exploration can help that change of economic model.

2