3 ms·

100% of the industries that've repeatedly gotten headlines about being caught polluting continue to profitably operate on earth without spending billions of dol

100% of the industries that've repeatedly gotten headlines about being caught polluting continue to profitably operate on earth without spending billions of dollars to put infrastructure into space and adding hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to every production run. It would obviously be far, far easier to hermetically seal all of these plants and scrub the output and, if you really want to (but don't need to, obviously) you can launch the exhaust into the sun. All would be several orders of magnitude cheaper than building factories in outer space. > Well I mean if you focus on the transitionary phase of anything expensive, it looks difficult to justify and this is no exception. No. The majority of things we end up actually doing, we do because there is clear value on the other side of the activation energy. We're both looking at a wall of activation energy, I'm asking you what's on the other side, and your answer is effectively "the other side." > No, but I’m not posing one as an alternative or exclusive to the other. ... but markets do. If governments start caring about heat islands or air conditioning, the reasonable solution is not colonizing outer space. Obviously. > This kind of frontier is stabilizing because... I am once again asking for evidence of this claim. > Because then you’d unnecessarily be letting an entire wing of science atrophy The only reason you see it this way instead of right-sizing space investment and preventing other fields from atrophying is because, surprise, you've already concluded space travel is super important -- and for reasons that you cannot articulate.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
> I am once again asking for evidence of this claim. It’s a theory based on the effects frontiers have tended to have on society in the past. For frontiers beyond Earth’s orbit specifically, presenting evidence is impossible because it’s not something we’ve done. Either way, I think it’s a good thing to have somewhere for people who feel tired and defeated as well as those looking to build something for themselves to go. > The only reason you see it this way instead of right-sizing space investment and preventing other fields from atrophying is because, surprise, you've already concluded space travel is super important -- and for reasons that you cannot articulate. I’m not opposed to “right sizing” crewed space investments as long as it doesn’t mean sidelining it to the point of being stuck in a 90s-esque state of dinking around in low Earth orbit forever. I’m not saying to throw everything we have at it and make it all happen ASAP. I’m aware it’s something that will take a long time, and that’s exacerbated by cost. Start small and grow over time. That’s fine. Just keep it moving forward at a steady pace, that’s all I really want.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  I don't need evidence from the frontier beyond earth, I need evidence that "having frontier" has any meaningful effect whatsoever on social stability. You presumably don't have any because, like the other arguments, it's a sci-fi vignette and not reality. Agreed that progress on space exploration shouldn't stop. I really have never heard a good argument for manned space exploration, which is dramatically more expensive, complicated, and risky, though.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

> I am once again asking for evidence of this claim. It’s a theory based on the effects frontiers have tended to have on society in the past. For frontiers beyond Earth’s orbit specifically, presenting evidence is impossible because it’s not something we’ve done. Either way, I think it’s a good thing to have somewhere for people who feel tired and defeated as well as those looking to build something for themselves to go. > The only reason you see it this way instead of right-sizing space investment and preventing other fields from atrophying is because, surprise, you've already concluded space travel is super important -- and for reasons that you cannot articulate. I’m not opposed to “right sizing” crewed space investments as long as it doesn’t mean sidelining it to the point of being stuck in a 90s-esque state of dinking around in low Earth orbit forever. I’m not saying to throw everything we have at it and make it all happen ASAP. I’m aware it’s something that will take a long time, and that’s exacerbated by cost. Start small and grow over time. That’s fine. Just keep it moving forward at a steady pace, that’s all I really want.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
I don't need evidence from the frontier beyond earth, I need evidence that "having frontier" has any meaningful effect whatsoever on social stability. You presumably don't have any because, like the other arguments, it's a sci-fi vignette and not reality. Agreed that progress on space exploration shouldn't stop. I really have never heard a good argument for manned space exploration, which is dramatically more expensive, complicated, and risky, though.