5 ms·

I think you are very delusional. 1) "Opportunities on earth" will always be more efficient in many aspects. Cost, waste, energy demand, reliability, throughput

I think you are very delusional. 1) "Opportunities on earth" will always be more efficient in many aspects. Cost, waste, energy demand, reliability, throughput to provide for the 99% remaining on earth, the ones we actually try to solve problems for. You are ignoring cost-benefit analysis, scaling factors and side effects. 2) You are betting on space industries to compete and replace earth bound processes but only give launch capabilities as an argument. I think there are vast uncertainties and unknowns to overcome. Even if it plays out as you imagine, it will probably neither happen in your lifetime nor in next generations. All the while we continue to damage your foundation because we chase a pie in the sky. 3) Shooting for mars is idiotic. Going for the moon yields similar results and is much "easier". From there the rest of the solar system gets closer to us but please keep in mind, I am still not talking about self sustaining colonies or industries. Given that our earth still provides plenty, shooting for space in general is idiotic imo. If I had to bet on a technical long shot solution, I would go for nuclear fusion instead of bezos/musk, who I suspect to be equally delusional. Please read closely. Id like to tell you something about population dynamics. Maybe you have heard about the malthusian point of crisis, where food demand overshoots supply and a population starts to decline/collapse. This picture is incomplete. Every species faces 3 categories of destabilizing threats: resources/nutriment, waste products and selective factors (a general term for internal/external stressors like predators, war, diseases, catastrophes, etc). All of our man made problems fit into one of these categories! In the long run, every species has to solve these problems! Pointing at the potential resources and space for landfills beyond earth will not free you from these constraints, it just extend your grace period and enables you to pretend to have solved anything. An actual self sustaining colony means producing _and recycling_ everything, from the vital technology stack down to every day products. If any tech billionaire ever reaches that awareness of the problem and a solution for it, then why build it in space?! What we need is a circular, sustainable econmy, which is also a big moonshot, unfortunately. But either way, the realization of the problems we face is the first step. CO2 is just one our urgent waste products. Can you name a second one with global implications?

ETH_start 2y ago
I agree that Earth’s problems should always be a priority, but I think there’s a tendency — especially in today’s political climate — to be overly skeptical of space exploration, particularly when the private sector is involved. It’s worth asking whether that skepticism comes purely from a neutral assessment of the facts or if it’s influenced by a broader narrative that frames space expansion as a distraction rather than an investment in the future. The thing is, we already have a real-world example of how a large space program benefited Earth: the Apollo program. It wasn’t just about getting to the Moon — it led to a wave of new technologies that had nothing to do with space travel but ended up shaping industries back on Earth. That’s what happens when you push engineering and science to their limits. Space missions are, by their nature, some of the most ambitious and disciplined blue sky projects we undertake. They force researchers and engineers to tackle extreme challenges, and in doing so, they produce breakthroughs that spill over into everyday life. That kind of well-funded, high-stakes R&D has historically driven progress in ways that aren’t always obvious at first but turn out to be game-changers. Now, when people talk about space expansion as unrealistic or too difficult, what they’re often really saying is that it’s too expensive. And historically, they’ve been right — cost has always been the biggest obstacle. But that’s exactly what’s changing. Before SpaceX, launching anything into orbit cost around $15,000 per kilogram. That meant sending a single astronaut into space could cost nearly a billion dollars. At those prices, space wasn’t an option for anything beyond government-funded prestige projects. But we’re already past that era. Falcon 9 proved that launch costs can be dramatically reduced, and we’ve seen the direct impact of that—Starlink is a perfect example of a space-based system that’s already providing real-world benefits. With Starship, the cost of going to orbit could drop by another order of magnitude. If that happens, access to space will go from being a rare, ultra-expensive event to something routine. That completely changes what’s possible. I think it’s shortsighted to assume space won’t provide massive benefits to Earth. Just like how early computing looked niche and impractical until it took over everything, space development is on that same trajectory. The same people who dismissed reusable rockets a decade ago are now watching them land on drone ships in the ocean. I just think it’s worth taking a step back and asking: is this skepticism really coming from a place of objective analysis? Or is it just part of the broader push to downplay space exploration, especially when it’s coming from the private sector? Because if history has shown us anything, it’s that ambitious, long-term projects often look like distractions — right up until they change the world.
henearkr 2y ago
Yeah. water. I agree with your points, which I could summarize as "my 1) is very difficult". May it be more accessible with mechanical systems instead of humans working outside of Earth? Anyway, I hope you understand and agree with my main point: to continue economic growth in our biosphere will just destroy this biosphere, quicker than we realize.
- throwawayqqq11 2y ago
  Well, its difficult to break our entire civilisation down into a binary destructive: yes/no. On the one side you have the majority not caring to actually solve problems and on the other you have small genetics research teams maybe revolutionizing our waste management. Going fully sustainable / having recycling rates of 100% / having zero impact on our environment ... is impossible I think. But I absolutely dont need to measure against that hard goal to conclude how much we are f'ing things up. So yea, I generally agree with you, even though i wouldnt put it on economic growth alone.

ETH_start 2y ago

I agree that Earth’s problems should always be a priority, but I think there’s a tendency — especially in today’s political climate — to be overly skeptical of space exploration, particularly when the private sector is involved. It’s worth asking whether that skepticism comes purely from a neutral assessment of the facts or if it’s influenced by a broader narrative that frames space expansion as a distraction rather than an investment in the future. The thing is, we already have a real-world example of how a large space program benefited Earth: the Apollo program. It wasn’t just about getting to the Moon — it led to a wave of new technologies that had nothing to do with space travel but ended up shaping industries back on Earth. That’s what happens when you push engineering and science to their limits. Space missions are, by their nature, some of the most ambitious and disciplined blue sky projects we undertake. They force researchers and engineers to tackle extreme challenges, and in doing so, they produce breakthroughs that spill over into everyday life. That kind of well-funded, high-stakes R&D has historically driven progress in ways that aren’t always obvious at first but turn out to be game-changers. Now, when people talk about space expansion as unrealistic or too difficult, what they’re often really saying is that it’s too expensive. And historically, they’ve been right — cost has always been the biggest obstacle. But that’s exactly what’s changing. Before SpaceX, launching anything into orbit cost around $15,000 per kilogram. That meant sending a single astronaut into space could cost nearly a billion dollars. At those prices, space wasn’t an option for anything beyond government-funded prestige projects. But we’re already past that era. Falcon 9 proved that launch costs can be dramatically reduced, and we’ve seen the direct impact of that—Starlink is a perfect example of a space-based system that’s already providing real-world benefits. With Starship, the cost of going to orbit could drop by another order of magnitude. If that happens, access to space will go from being a rare, ultra-expensive event to something routine. That completely changes what’s possible. I think it’s shortsighted to assume space won’t provide massive benefits to Earth. Just like how early computing looked niche and impractical until it took over everything, space development is on that same trajectory. The same people who dismissed reusable rockets a decade ago are now watching them land on drone ships in the ocean. I just think it’s worth taking a step back and asking: is this skepticism really coming from a place of objective analysis? Or is it just part of the broader push to downplay space exploration, especially when it’s coming from the private sector? Because if history has shown us anything, it’s that ambitious, long-term projects often look like distractions — right up until they change the world.

henearkr 2y ago

Yeah. water. I agree with your points, which I could summarize as "my 1) is very difficult". May it be more accessible with mechanical systems instead of humans working outside of Earth? Anyway, I hope you understand and agree with my main point: to continue economic growth in our biosphere will just destroy this biosphere, quicker than we realize.

throwawayqqq11 2y ago
Well, its difficult to break our entire civilisation down into a binary destructive: yes/no. On the one side you have the majority not caring to actually solve problems and on the other you have small genetics research teams maybe revolutionizing our waste management. Going fully sustainable / having recycling rates of 100% / having zero impact on our environment ... is impossible I think. But I absolutely dont need to measure against that hard goal to conclude how much we are f'ing things up. So yea, I generally agree with you, even though i wouldnt put it on economic growth alone.