[ExI] Millions of tons to space

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Sun Apr 3 07:08:06 UTC 2011

2011/4/2 Mr Jones <mrjones2020 at gmail.com>:
> 2011/4/2 spike <spike66 at att.net>
>> This implies you understand what we (humanity) are fighting for.  Do you?
>> Explain please.

I'm fighting/hoping for more intelligence in the world. With enough
intelligence, I think we can solve our energy problems.

> Energy.  Whether it be in the form of fuel in our tanks, or food in our
> stomach.  It's all about energy.  Always has been.  Before OIL it was COAL.
>  Before COAL it was WOOD.

Energy is clearly central to the endeavors of human beings and will be
to our successors as well. Let's do a little exercise... Let's suppose
that in 100 years most intelligence is non-human. That is, it runs on
a non-biological substrate. I would suppose that such a substrate
would be able to survive without too much difficulty in outer space.
Given the nearly limitless solar energy that could be harvested by
orbiting the sun, I kind of wonder if earth itself won't be a
backwater in 100 years. If intelligent robots can survive in space
without the life support that biological humans require, then
harvesting the needed materials from asteroids, comets and other
sources will be cheaper than bringing materials up from earth to

So the whole concept of the importance of the space elevator, beaming
solar energy down to earth, solving global warming and so forth may be
a problem for the remaining biological legacy on earth, but may not be
"where it's happening" in the future.

This is just a thought experiment, I'm curious what you all think.

> If the brilliant minds humanity has at it's disposal, spent less brain
> cycles devoted to destroying/controlling one another, and instead focused on
> freeing ourselves...we'd be much better off imho.

Of course we would, but if we didn't spend money on war, we certainly
wouldn't be spending it on something less politically important. At
some point, when gasoline is $20 a gallon, and there is no hope of it
ever going under $15 a gallon, then the people of the USA will raise
the priority of energy management to the point that such spending will
seem justified to the point that the politicians will pay attention.
Sorry for the cynical attitude today... but I just don't see
politicians as an intelligent life form.

> It's silly, we spend $400B plus a year importing oil, yet $100B investment
> in renewable/sustainable energy is unheard of?

Yup. The idea that Al Gore would have done things differently is a
pipe dream... even with his green ideas, I don't think it would have
turned out all that differently.

> It's a matter of mindset.  Like being pro-peace, not anti-war.  Move towards
> things, don't run away from them.
> Hell, the USoA has spent what...$2-3T on Iraq/Afghanistan, for what..global
> oil production?  Imagine what $2-3T would have accomplished had it went to
> R&D in the energy sector.

I love the spin on Libya. It's so clearly about oil, why do they have
to maintain the facade that it's human rights concerns? We haven't
done crap in Sudan. There is more human suffering in Haiti, Sumatra
and Japan than there ever will be in Libya, but Libya has oil... it's
the only difference.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list