[extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment

[kevinfreels.com]

Spread your real estate investments as you would any other investment. Buy
some desert land, some land outside some metro areas, some rural land near
rivers, etc. You really can't predict how things are going to turn out. STay
away from the beaches though as a few inches of increase in sea levels could
ruin your day. Big metro areas should remain fairly popular despite
increasing abilities to conncet with people without physically being
present.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Clemmensen" <dgc at cox.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment


> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> >On 8/16/05, Acy James Stapp <astapp at amazeent.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a
> >>post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the
> >>only finite resources, and will become highly desired as
> >>an extravagent luxury good.
> >>
> >>If fusion does not become rapidly affordable the insolation
> >>of a particular parcel of land becomes a valuable resource
> >>for solar power; if you want to bet against fusion buying
> >>land in the American west, Australian outback, or other sunny
> >>desert areas could be quite profitable. And if fusion does
> >>become affordable, you can farm it with desalinated water.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, fusion is at least three decades away, and that's being optimistic.
> >The notion that in three decades it will be cheaper than PV is
> >insanely optimistic. I wouldn't bet on it being cheaper than solar in
> >less than six decades.
> >
> >
> >
> Fusion developed by humans, extrapolating from current magnetic or laser
> systems, may in fact be six decades from feasibility. Fusion developed
> by SI is a different story. Either we have nanotech, or not. If
> nanotech, then SI, and if SI, then nanotech. If SI, then fusion,
> probably based on nanotech. Therefore, your extrapolation of fusion to
> 2065 implies that you think the singularity will not have occurred by
then.
>
> True nanotech implies design to atomic precision. In my opinion,
> accelerator-based fusion can easily reach break-even if the accelerator
> is atomically precise.
>
> Depending on the ethics of the SI, real estate may still be the best
> investment, due as you say to insolation. An SI may prefer to optimize
> energy use (prefer to not waste energy) for ethical reasons. However,
> you can capture a lot more solar energy in space than on the earth's
> surface, so the best use of your real estate is to boost it into space.
> Take your hectare of land, excavate it to the legal ownership depth, and
> boost it into a solar orbit. Spread it as a nanotech membrane of (say)
> 100 micrometer thickness. I the legal ownership depth is 100Km, you
> expand your real estate's solar cross-section by a factor of 10^^12. For
> the sake of argument, let's assume we convert a portion of the mass to
> energy to boost the mass onto a solar orbit.
>
> Of course, the membrane will produce more power if the orbital radius is
> reduced.
>
> We can also use some of the mass to build sun divers that can grab mass
> from the solar "surface" and bring it back to a feasible distance from
> the sun.
>
> Of course, if an Si is "evolving" rapidly, even this is wasteful. Better
> to tame and direct the solar furnace rather than merely waiting for the
> photons to reach the collector.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>