5 ms·

Here is a list of NEO Earth Close Approaches: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/ http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/ 1. Not a bad ROI to save a global economy with a GDP of

Here is a list of NEO Earth Close Approaches: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/ http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/ 1. Not a bad ROI to save a global economy with a GDP of $77.609 trillion and population of 7.095 billion.[1] 2. The side benefit is understanding how to mine NEOs worth billions.[2] 3. I would like to buy an insurance policy against an impact. I bet it would be super cheap as there is very low risk, but would get me to Mars or ISS. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

jfoutz 11y ago
Warren Buffet might sell you that. He'll insure just about anything, and the terms are interesting. There's no negotiation. You get to present 1 time the about of coverage vs the premiums you'll pay. Keep in mind, the won't take a losing bet, the premiums must be more than the risk of payout, if you want 10 dollars of coverage for an event with 10% happening, you're going to have to pay well more than $1 for the premium. On the upside, if you're really worried about needing $10,000,000,000 of coverage, and you're willing to pay the premium, you can get it. You just have to make the deal sweet enough for him to take it. and you have to guess right the first time.
shasta 11y ago
3. I would love to sell you that insurance policy.
- philippnagel 11y ago
  Does such an insurance policy exist already?
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > Does such an insurance policy exist already? Not to my knowledge. I believe parent is being sarcastic. If an impact event occurs: a) claimant might be too dead to make the claim or b) markets would probably collapse, making the payout worthless. So there is very little point in buying that kind of cover, the only party with an upside is the insurer - hence parent volunteering.
  - dankohn1 11y ago
    USD-denominated Credit Default Swaps on US Treasuries (which were a thing in 2008) fall in this category. Any scenario bad enough for the swaps to be redeemable is one in which you are unlikely to be able to redeem them. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-26/why-would-anyone-buy-credit-default-swaps-on-the-u-s- http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-26/why-would-a...
- cmsmith 11y ago
  I'm also offering USD denominated insurance against the United States descending into anarchy.
EGreg 11y ago
"Based on known terrestrial reserves, and growing consumption in both developed and developing countries, key elements needed for modern industry and food production could be exhausted on Earth within 50–60 years.[2] These include phosphorus, antimony, zinc, tin, lead, indium, silver, gold and copper" Sounds ominous! Why aren't we more worried? Because Capitalism?
- gizmo686 11y ago
  The standard answers are: 1) Known reserves likely represent a fraction of what is available because we have not had reason to search for new reserves. 2) We do not really consume any of those resources in the same way that we consume fossil fuels, so as a worst case scenario, we can simply mine them from our landfills. This arguably falls under new, more expensive, reserves.
- oilywater 11y ago
  Mostly that. But realistically there's no education on any of this stuff. For example 2017 is the year when some of the most used rare earth elements will be depleted and should be retrieved through recycling in the next years (gallium for the LCD displays is disappearing, so either we figure out the displays or massively recycle). This is not a surprise because the demand for rare earth elements has been rising exponentially, with the number of electronic devices produced :D Although, food production is definitely getting more and more efficient. But biology of living beings on Earth is too inefficient for the current production to be sustainable. Just compare the vast amounts of food (energy) a single duck, chicken or cow needs to maintain body heat, with the weight (energy value) of meat. This coupled with growing consumption in developing countries won't really work. Without Hot Air is an excellent book written by a problem solving pragmatist and excellent machine learning researcher David MacKay exposing the pure numbers and limits and extrapolating them carefully, to get the same conclusions. http://www.withouthotair.com/Electronic.html http://www.withouthotair.com/Electronic.html
  - ridgeguy 11y ago
    Gallium supply: Wikipedia [1] says USGS estimates gallium reserves as > one megaton. Production in 2012 was an estimated 273 metric tons. I don't see us running out of gallium soon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium
patcon 11y ago
Someone should really scrape that site into an API and re-surface it to make it as well-designed as it deserves to be. Would be a fun UX/design side-project... EDIT: The first site you linked, that is :)
- mattbeckman 11y ago
  I believe there is one here: https://data.nasa.gov/ https://data.nasa.gov/

jfoutz 11y ago

Warren Buffet might sell you that. He'll insure just about anything, and the terms are interesting. There's no negotiation. You get to present 1 time the about of coverage vs the premiums you'll pay. Keep in mind, the won't take a losing bet, the premiums must be more than the risk of payout, if you want 10 dollars of coverage for an event with 10% happening, you're going to have to pay well more than $1 for the premium. On the upside, if you're really worried about needing $10,000,000,000 of coverage, and you're willing to pay the premium, you can get it. You just have to make the deal sweet enough for him to take it. and you have to guess right the first time.

shasta 11y ago

3. I would love to sell you that insurance policy.

philippnagel 11y ago
Does such an insurance policy exist already?
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > Does such an insurance policy exist already? Not to my knowledge. I believe parent is being sarcastic. If an impact event occurs: a) claimant might be too dead to make the claim or b) markets would probably collapse, making the payout worthless. So there is very little point in buying that kind of cover, the only party with an upside is the insurer - hence parent volunteering.
- dankohn1 11y ago
  USD-denominated Credit Default Swaps on US Treasuries (which were a thing in 2008) fall in this category. Any scenario bad enough for the swaps to be redeemable is one in which you are unlikely to be able to redeem them. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-26/why-would-anyone-buy-credit-default-swaps-on-the-u-s- http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-26/why-would-a...
cmsmith 11y ago
I'm also offering USD denominated insurance against the United States descending into anarchy.

EGreg 11y ago

"Based on known terrestrial reserves, and growing consumption in both developed and developing countries, key elements needed for modern industry and food production could be exhausted on Earth within 50–60 years.[2] These include phosphorus, antimony, zinc, tin, lead, indium, silver, gold and copper" Sounds ominous! Why aren't we more worried? Because Capitalism?

gizmo686 11y ago
The standard answers are: 1) Known reserves likely represent a fraction of what is available because we have not had reason to search for new reserves. 2) We do not really consume any of those resources in the same way that we consume fossil fuels, so as a worst case scenario, we can simply mine them from our landfills. This arguably falls under new, more expensive, reserves.
oilywater 11y ago
Mostly that. But realistically there's no education on any of this stuff. For example 2017 is the year when some of the most used rare earth elements will be depleted and should be retrieved through recycling in the next years (gallium for the LCD displays is disappearing, so either we figure out the displays or massively recycle). This is not a surprise because the demand for rare earth elements has been rising exponentially, with the number of electronic devices produced :D Although, food production is definitely getting more and more efficient. But biology of living beings on Earth is too inefficient for the current production to be sustainable. Just compare the vast amounts of food (energy) a single duck, chicken or cow needs to maintain body heat, with the weight (energy value) of meat. This coupled with growing consumption in developing countries won't really work. Without Hot Air is an excellent book written by a problem solving pragmatist and excellent machine learning researcher David MacKay exposing the pure numbers and limits and extrapolating them carefully, to get the same conclusions. http://www.withouthotair.com/Electronic.html http://www.withouthotair.com/Electronic.html
- ridgeguy 11y ago
  Gallium supply: Wikipedia [1] says USGS estimates gallium reserves as > one megaton. Production in 2012 was an estimated 273 metric tons. I don't see us running out of gallium soon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium

patcon 11y ago

Someone should really scrape that site into an API and re-surface it to make it as well-designed as it deserves to be. Would be a fun UX/design side-project... EDIT: The first site you linked, that is :)

mattbeckman 11y ago
I believe there is one here: https://data.nasa.gov/ https://data.nasa.gov/