Rather than asteroid mining, what I want in my lifetime is an end to mining, period, an end to exploitative adventurism, an end to expanding our rapaciousness across the cosmos. I want the development of organic, sustainable technologies that don't depend on endless inputs. I want people to love the beauty on this planet before lusting to see another.
We should do both. There are a lot of avenues to research and grow our knowledge. Ideally, the lessons we learn in building a sustainable colony offworld lead to increases in sustainability here on Earth. And what we learn about managing ecosystems here leads to respectful treatment of offworld systems from the start.
>The update to US law explicitly allows "US citizens to engage in the commercial exploration and exploitation of 'space resources' [including ... water and minerals]."
The idea of ruining or polluting space is ridiculous. Space is already one of the least hospitable places imaginable, in most of it's forms. What's wrong with exploiting dead space rocks for the sake of all life?
I see the beauty in my state, but still want to visit other states. I see the beauty in my country, but still want to visit other countries. Not sure why this thought should end at our atmosphere.
Also, the only thing that will end mining on this planet is if all humans are dead. Until the Zharnog Mining Fleet from Seeplebop 14 strip mines the entire planet, that is.
80.1 Ah, for a small country with a small population! Though there are highly efficient mechanical contrivances, the people have no use for them. Let them mind death and refrain from migrating to distant places.
80.2 Boats and carriages, weapons and armour there may still be, but there are no occasions for using or displaying them.
80.3 Let the people revert to communication by knotting cords. See to it that they are contented with their food, pleased with their clothing, satisfied with their houses, and inured to their simple way of living.
80.4 Though there may be another country in the neighbourhood so close that they are within sight of each other and the crowing of cocks and barking of dogs in one place can be heard in the other, yet there is no traffic between them, and throughout their lives the two peoples have nothing to do with each other.
>Also, the only thing that will end mining on this planet is if all humans are dead.
No, we just need to stop depending on metals and fossil fuels, both of which are possible and desirable. We've already come close to achieving the latter; the work of this century will be doing the former. Unless we waste all of our time trying to get into space, that useless, airless desert.
Hey, if you can find some with radio or miles-distant electrical or optical signalling features, go for it.
Until then, I'm going to want at least a few crust-extracted materials to keep the Internet operational so we can even have this conversation from casually-anonymous points on the globe.
I have very little doubt we'll be printing long wires using just carbon in the next few decades. Until then, sure, let's use crust-extracted materials, but the advantages to making them obsolete are enormous and available.
I wasn't trying to imply it's impossible, and I agree it's a worthy goal, but I am curious as to some real ideas that would replace our current setup. Doesn't a typical smartphone use dozens of rare metals? People aren't going to give that up for the environment or they would have already, sadly.
How do you suppose we can gain access to organic computing and manufacturing without going through intermediate, less precise step that requires fuels and metals to compensate for the lack of molecular-level finesse?
> organic, sustainable technologies that don't depend on endless inputs
The reason we have good things is because we have relatively unlimited energy and raw material goods. It's not like we have some "magic" cave men didn't.
Wait, you don't think splitting the atom, or even using advanced geospatial imaging to locate and extract oil deposits from miles underground, qualifies as "magic" that cave men didn't have?
Closed loops are possible. Your carbon inputs and outputs are relatively meager; you are a machine with a small cost in energy and entropy, easily paid. Etc. for our dependencies (buildings, cars, etc.). The big advantage humans have over nature is we don't have to rely on ecosystems to supply our energy budgets; we can generate power directly from the sun, or from atoms, or a dozen other ways.
> Wait, you don't think splitting the atom, or even using advanced geospatial imaging to locate and extract oil deposits from miles underground, qualifies as "magic" that cave men didn't have?
Involves mining. I'm just saying that you can't have humanity camp out in a forest forever and have a 21st century quality of life.
Unfortunate that this comment is being downvoted to oblivion; it's a valid conjecture, and not one I've seen. Something similar that gets little or no attention is: humanities influence on species of the planet, from out right genocide and extinctions, to eugenics. There's an extreme formulation of environmentalism one could derive from David Brins Uplift stories; that the most moral thing we can do for the Potential sentient species on the planet that have not arisen yet (or maybe they have) is to get ourselves off of the planet entirely, and let nature takes its course.
Err, what? No, I want advanced carbon-based technologies. You know, what trees do - make things out of carbon, nitrogen, etc., and fucking amazing biochemistry.
That 'hit' is equivalent to reducing the carrying capacity of the planet by ~5 billion humans or using 50% of the ice free land mass for agriculture to support them.
Again, only if you believe there is no alternative to using the Haber process to make nitrogen inputs for agriculture to provide humans with food. If, like me, you believe that the Haber process was invented at the turn of the previous century, and it's time for us to grow up and master biochemistry, then the "hit" is entirely avoidable.
Your goal is to replace mining. If we had free energy (let's say "zero point energy"), then we could stop using natural gas and get the H2 needed for the Haber process directly from electricity. There would be no need to replace the Haber process.
But we don't have enough excess power for this to be economical.
The thing about 100 years of history is there's also 100 years of optimization, and 100 years to find something better. And there are many proposals of methods which are better in the lab. Just not at industrial scales that can feed a planet.
Nor is it for lack of trying. There are economic and personal incentives for anyone who can radically improve our understanding - to "grow up" as you so crudely put it. It's a certain Nobel Prize, following in Haber's footsteps. Yes, we know it can be done since bacteria have figured out how to fix soils at STP.
(To correct a point you made earlier, nitrogen fixation is certainly NOT part of the biochemical repertoire of any tree or plant.)
But as I pointed out, ammonia synthesis is only one of several very large industrial processes we use for food production. In addition to phosphates and potash, a lot of crop land is zinc deficient or in other micronutrients. Neither plants nor bacteria have figured out how to replenish those chemicals on their own or through bacteria, and depend instead on glaciers, erosion and volcanoes.
While we mine rock to make fertilizers more quickly.
It is not so easy to get rid of mining and feed the world's billions. There is obviously much profit to be had in finding something renewable which is also cheaper than mining. Most of Australia's farmers, for one, want to replenish the nutrient-poor, ancient soils under their crops.
Honestly, the universe would easily be able to sustain our rapaciousness if we had the tech to actually go and claim it. I actually really like Bezos' idea of moving all industries off-planet.
You might try reading more science fiction -- not only did it explore "Bezos' idea" long before he ever said it, it also has plenty of fun outcomes for how the universe can't sustain our rapaciousness.
I'm mystified by how many comments in this thread are of this form, unable to imagine that technology in the future might differ from what we currently employ.
We are in the middle of a project, right now, to make natural gas and coal obsolete. This shouldn't even require any imagination to conceive. Yet, still, you chastise me for doing so?
Recall, we're imagining the future, not regurgitating the present.
Rather than asteroid mining, what I want in my lifetime is an end to mining, period, an end to exploitative adventurism, an end to expanding our rapaciousness across the cosmos. I want the development of organic, sustainable technologies that don't depend on endless inputs. I want people to love the beauty on this planet before lusting to see another.