3 ms·

> it cracks open access to vast amounts of resources to support populations and allows many environmentally detrimental processes to be moved away from Earth W

> it cracks open access to vast amounts of resources to support populations and allows many environmentally detrimental processes to be moved away from Earth What resources? What "environmentally detrimental processes" actually possibly justify expending the energy required to leave and re-enter earth orbit? Sorry but I've looked into this, and unless you can provide specific examples I haven't encountered (none of which make sense mathematically), you're just sharing sci-fi vignettes. And in any case, none of this requires manned space flight. > Second, it gives infinite space to expand into. We are nowhere near any constraint on physical space on earth and we will not be near this constraint any time in the near, medium, or even far future. > Third, it opens up a permanently available frontier for the most resetless individuals to pursue, acting as a societal pressure release valve that enhances stability. Do you have any evidence for this claim? > By contrast, staying bound to Earth puts a hard cap on everything. A cap that we are absolutely nowhere near hitting and that continues to get pushed further away with every dollar spent on technological investment on earth, which space-fetish dollars pull from.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
> What resources? Anything that industries have proven that they can’t be trusted to carry out here on Earth without wrecking things in the process. It’s not just financial costs but associated externalities as well. And in the long term, assuming significant populations elsewhere in the solar system, economies of scale kick in and it becomes best to manufacture many things in space where you’re not fighting a gravity well on the way out and can sell to as many customers as possible. > We are nowhere near any constraint on physical space on earth and we will not be near this constraint any time in the near, medium, or even far future. We’re pretty close if we want to avoid even more environmental destruction than we’ve already caused. Even if we were to expand into deserts, we’d still be wreaking havoc on local and global ecosystems. There’s an argument for bumping up density in already-inhabited areas without sprawling outward, but that has limits and brings its own problems (like cities being concrete and asphalt heat islands that are exacerbated by everybody running their AC). > Do you have any evidence for this claim? It’s the natural result of spacefaring becoming commonplace. Prices on it all come down and access opens up, and unlike Earth, every square inch of space isn’t spoken for (and never will be). Sounds like a frontier to me. > A cap that we are absolutely nowhere near hitting and that continues to get pushed further away with every dollar spent on technological investment on earth, which space-fetish dollars pull from. But science and technology don’t work that way. The return on investment isn’t anywhere near linear, so it doesn’t make sense to pour more into already well-funded causes. You’ll just hit diminishing returns. The best results come from investing across as wide of a spread of fields as possible, leaving nothing ignored. And we don’t need to pull from other kinds of research to fund crewed spaceflight anyway. There’s plenty to be had just by cleaning up the egregious waste that’s splashed around on a regular basis. Just imagine how much money has been lit on fire doing and undoing policies between political administrations for example, or how much has disappeared thanks to cronyism in government contracting.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  > Anything that industries have proven that they can’t be trusted to carry out here on Earth without wrecking things in the process. It’s not just financial costs but associated externalities as well. Again... like what? "Assume we have massive economies already inhabiting other planets" is... again... simply asserting your conclusion. > We’re pretty close if... You expect colonizing the Moon or Mars to be easier than solving heat islands and air conditioning? I was asking for evidence that having frontiers to explore (besides the vast frontiers left on earth including the ocean) are some meaningful stabilizing force for society. > The best results come from investing across as wide of a spread of fields as possible, leaving nothing ignored. Okay then why wouldn't we take the vast sums spent on space travel and spread it to the thousands of far less-funded fields of scientific development?
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    > Again... like what? Pick any of the industries that’ve repeatedly gotten headlines about being caught polluting. > "Assume we have massive economies already inhabiting other planets" is... again... simply asserting your conclusion. Well I mean if you focus on the transitionary phase of anything expensive, it looks difficult to justify and this is no exception. > You expect colonizing the Moon or Mars to be easier than solving heat islands and air conditioning? No, but I’m not posing one as an alternative or exclusive to the other. > I was asking for evidence that having frontiers to explore (besides the vast frontiers left on earth including the ocean) are some meaningful stabilizing force for society. Frontiers as in new places to settle, not just explore. While I guess it’s technically possible to settle the bottom of the ocean I don’t think very many groups or individuals would find the prospect all that appealing. This kind of frontier is stabilizing because when people become dissatisfied or frustrated with the state of things where they live, they can band together with likeminded, stake a claim, and shape their own fate to a greater degree than would otherwise be possible. This hasn’t been possible for a long time now. > Okay then why wouldn't we take the vast sums spent on space travel and spread it to the thousands of far less-funded fields of scientific development? Because then you’d unnecessarily be letting an entire wing of science atrophy when those other less -funded fields could instead easily be funded by cleaning up waste.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

> What resources? Anything that industries have proven that they can’t be trusted to carry out here on Earth without wrecking things in the process. It’s not just financial costs but associated externalities as well. And in the long term, assuming significant populations elsewhere in the solar system, economies of scale kick in and it becomes best to manufacture many things in space where you’re not fighting a gravity well on the way out and can sell to as many customers as possible. > We are nowhere near any constraint on physical space on earth and we will not be near this constraint any time in the near, medium, or even far future. We’re pretty close if we want to avoid even more environmental destruction than we’ve already caused. Even if we were to expand into deserts, we’d still be wreaking havoc on local and global ecosystems. There’s an argument for bumping up density in already-inhabited areas without sprawling outward, but that has limits and brings its own problems (like cities being concrete and asphalt heat islands that are exacerbated by everybody running their AC). > Do you have any evidence for this claim? It’s the natural result of spacefaring becoming commonplace. Prices on it all come down and access opens up, and unlike Earth, every square inch of space isn’t spoken for (and never will be). Sounds like a frontier to me. > A cap that we are absolutely nowhere near hitting and that continues to get pushed further away with every dollar spent on technological investment on earth, which space-fetish dollars pull from. But science and technology don’t work that way. The return on investment isn’t anywhere near linear, so it doesn’t make sense to pour more into already well-funded causes. You’ll just hit diminishing returns. The best results come from investing across as wide of a spread of fields as possible, leaving nothing ignored. And we don’t need to pull from other kinds of research to fund crewed spaceflight anyway. There’s plenty to be had just by cleaning up the egregious waste that’s splashed around on a regular basis. Just imagine how much money has been lit on fire doing and undoing policies between political administrations for example, or how much has disappeared thanks to cronyism in government contracting.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> Anything that industries have proven that they can’t be trusted to carry out here on Earth without wrecking things in the process. It’s not just financial costs but associated externalities as well. Again... like what? "Assume we have massive economies already inhabiting other planets" is... again... simply asserting your conclusion. > We’re pretty close if... You expect colonizing the Moon or Mars to be easier than solving heat islands and air conditioning? I was asking for evidence that having frontiers to explore (besides the vast frontiers left on earth including the ocean) are some meaningful stabilizing force for society. > The best results come from investing across as wide of a spread of fields as possible, leaving nothing ignored. Okay then why wouldn't we take the vast sums spent on space travel and spread it to the thousands of far less-funded fields of scientific development?
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  > Again... like what? Pick any of the industries that’ve repeatedly gotten headlines about being caught polluting. > "Assume we have massive economies already inhabiting other planets" is... again... simply asserting your conclusion. Well I mean if you focus on the transitionary phase of anything expensive, it looks difficult to justify and this is no exception. > You expect colonizing the Moon or Mars to be easier than solving heat islands and air conditioning? No, but I’m not posing one as an alternative or exclusive to the other. > I was asking for evidence that having frontiers to explore (besides the vast frontiers left on earth including the ocean) are some meaningful stabilizing force for society. Frontiers as in new places to settle, not just explore. While I guess it’s technically possible to settle the bottom of the ocean I don’t think very many groups or individuals would find the prospect all that appealing. This kind of frontier is stabilizing because when people become dissatisfied or frustrated with the state of things where they live, they can band together with likeminded, stake a claim, and shape their own fate to a greater degree than would otherwise be possible. This hasn’t been possible for a long time now. > Okay then why wouldn't we take the vast sums spent on space travel and spread it to the thousands of far less-funded fields of scientific development? Because then you’d unnecessarily be letting an entire wing of science atrophy when those other less -funded fields could instead easily be funded by cleaning up waste.