5 ms·

There are no "resources". Aluminum. Silicon. Titanium. Iron. Water. (Hence hydrogen and oxygen.) Many of the other elements we need are available in the astero

There are no "resources". Aluminum. Silicon. Titanium. Iron. Water. (Hence hydrogen and oxygen.) Many of the other elements we need are available in the asteroid belt, and it's far less cost in energy to go there from the Moon than it takes to get off of the Earth. It's ejected mantle material just like we have here right under our feet, with the added disadvantage that there's no tectonics that would have had the effect of concentrating what trace materials were there. It's rocks. You're judging this by terrestrial standards. Given enough energy, rocks are still resources. Remember: the energy potentially available to a space faring civilization is literally orders of magnitude greater than that available to an Earth bound one. Someone who wants to imagine going to war with China over rocks on the moon is someone who wants to imagine going to war with China. I'd rather nothing like that ever happened. My wife is Chinese, for heaven's sake. However, the biggest wars are fought over energy resources. The control of lunar resources will be key in who gets to exploit vast amounts of solar energy at some point. Just as wars are now fought over oil, at some point, wars will be fought over who gets to build power satellites.

newacct583 6y ago
> You're judging this by terrestrial standards. That's right! Because we have plenty of rocks right here on earth!
- stcredzero 6y ago
  That's right! Because we have plenty of rocks right here on earth! Now, work out the economics of using Earth rocks to build power satellites. Compare that to the economics of using material from the Moon. The difference is orders of magnitude. Will that take a lot of energy? Yes, but there too, the difference is orders of magnitude.
doctor_eval 6y ago
I share your hope that there will be no war, and most of your points about exploration, but am less pessimistic. Wars are fought over oil on earth because it is a limited, nonrenewable resource. Solar energy is not practically limited, is already cheaper than oil, and can be harvested directly on earth. Perhaps war will be fought for access to the asteroid belt (similar to the US’ strategic position in the Middle East regarding access to oil), but if current trends continue, I doubt - and hope - that we will never go to war again over energy itself.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  Solar energy is not practically limited, is already cheaper than oil, and can be harvested directly on earth You're making a key mistake here. You're using terrestrial standards to judge something which can grow exponentially to many times what's possible to do on Earth. If the planners of major powers recognize this exponential expansion in an early phase, wars can be fought over who gets to plant the seeds and harvest the result. The military power embodied in the kind of energy harvesting we're talking about here, greatly dwarfs the same possible on Earth. If the great powers realize this, they will fight over it, with more ferocity than they do over access to the oceans.
pyuser583 6y ago
The biggest wars are fought over resources? I’m don’t know. The biggest wars the US fought are WWII, WWI, and the Civil War. None were over resources.
- majewsky 6y ago
  WWII was absolutely about resources. The Nazis wanted the fertile lands in Eastern Europe and Russia for their own supposedly superior people. In fact, one of their most popular slogans was about "Lebensraum im Osten"("space to live in the East"), which, now that I think about it, has a similarity in sound to the slogan of "Manifest Destiny" in the US. The first step of the "Lebensraum im Osten" plan was to invade Poland. Hitler split it with the Soviets in order to keep the Eastern border calm, since he needed all his forces on the Western front, to handle the backlash by the UK and France over the invasion of Poland. His original plan was to take on the Soviet Union only after having won the war on the Western front. However, he backtracked on that strategy and invaded the Soviets in 1942 because the war in the West took longer than expected. Several key campaigns on the Eastern front, including the infamous Battle for Stalingrad, were specifically about securing resources like steel and oil (and, conversely, cutting off the Soviets from those supplies). Disclaimer: I'm not a historian. All this is going off of what I would consider common knowledge as a German.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  The biggest wars are fought over resources? I’m don’t know. The biggest wars the US fought are WWII, WWI, and the Civ In other threads, I've been decrying the degradation in History education in the US and across the western world. It's gotten so that the current generations in the work force only have a "Flintstones" understanding of how the current world got to where it is now, and what lessons can be learned from history.

newacct583 6y ago

> You're judging this by terrestrial standards. That's right! Because we have plenty of rocks right here on earth!

stcredzero 6y ago
That's right! Because we have plenty of rocks right here on earth! Now, work out the economics of using Earth rocks to build power satellites. Compare that to the economics of using material from the Moon. The difference is orders of magnitude. Will that take a lot of energy? Yes, but there too, the difference is orders of magnitude.

doctor_eval 6y ago

I share your hope that there will be no war, and most of your points about exploration, but am less pessimistic. Wars are fought over oil on earth because it is a limited, nonrenewable resource. Solar energy is not practically limited, is already cheaper than oil, and can be harvested directly on earth. Perhaps war will be fought for access to the asteroid belt (similar to the US’ strategic position in the Middle East regarding access to oil), but if current trends continue, I doubt - and hope - that we will never go to war again over energy itself.

stcredzero 6y ago
Solar energy is not practically limited, is already cheaper than oil, and can be harvested directly on earth You're making a key mistake here. You're using terrestrial standards to judge something which can grow exponentially to many times what's possible to do on Earth. If the planners of major powers recognize this exponential expansion in an early phase, wars can be fought over who gets to plant the seeds and harvest the result. The military power embodied in the kind of energy harvesting we're talking about here, greatly dwarfs the same possible on Earth. If the great powers realize this, they will fight over it, with more ferocity than they do over access to the oceans.

pyuser583 6y ago

The biggest wars are fought over resources? I’m don’t know. The biggest wars the US fought are WWII, WWI, and the Civil War. None were over resources.

majewsky 6y ago
WWII was absolutely about resources. The Nazis wanted the fertile lands in Eastern Europe and Russia for their own supposedly superior people. In fact, one of their most popular slogans was about "Lebensraum im Osten"("space to live in the East"), which, now that I think about it, has a similarity in sound to the slogan of "Manifest Destiny" in the US. The first step of the "Lebensraum im Osten" plan was to invade Poland. Hitler split it with the Soviets in order to keep the Eastern border calm, since he needed all his forces on the Western front, to handle the backlash by the UK and France over the invasion of Poland. His original plan was to take on the Soviet Union only after having won the war on the Western front. However, he backtracked on that strategy and invaded the Soviets in 1942 because the war in the West took longer than expected. Several key campaigns on the Eastern front, including the infamous Battle for Stalingrad, were specifically about securing resources like steel and oil (and, conversely, cutting off the Soviets from those supplies). Disclaimer: I'm not a historian. All this is going off of what I would consider common knowledge as a German.
stcredzero 6y ago
The biggest wars are fought over resources? I’m don’t know. The biggest wars the US fought are WWII, WWI, and the Civ In other threads, I've been decrying the degradation in History education in the US and across the western world. It's gotten so that the current generations in the work force only have a "Flintstones" understanding of how the current world got to where it is now, and what lessons can be learned from history.