[ExI] Millions of tons to space
mrjones2020 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 3 17:00:52 UTC 2011
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
> >> 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
> > 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.
I'm perhaps a touch idealistic, but I would hope that it's been maintained
as an 'animal preserve' so to speak.
> 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
Exactly. And to increase real-estate when necessary, you tow hunks from
space into an orbit
> 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.
I see abundant solar energy solutions as a precursor to the Singularity.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think they're very necessary in the grand scheme
of things. I'd like to see humanity build a solar/hydrogen economy, seeing
as it's the most abundant element in our Universe.
> This is just a thought experiment, I'm curious what you all think.
Sign me up for virtualization, I'm game.
> > If the brilliant minds humanity has at it's disposal, spent less brain
> > cycles devoted to destroying/controlling one another, and instead focused
> > 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.
I just don't understand how the foresight isn't in place already. How can
we not see the giant cliff we're headed towards? It's not as if the writing
hasn't been on the wall for decades. Not to mention previous 'empires'
being brought down by extremely similar situations. The perfect storm of
sorts. I get the 300+ million sheeple in the USoA sleeping at the wheel,
they've been programmed well. What confuses me, is how upper management,
the top 10%, sees it as being in their own best interest to fleece the
middle/lower class they skim off of. I guess everything's international and
out-sourced enough to where location is irrelevant. Bad time to have
inferior manufacturing huh?
> Sorry for the cynical attitude today... but I just don't see
> politicians as an intelligent life form.
I'd like humanity to revolutionize governance by way of the internet. Gov
2.0 type deal.
> > It's silly, we spend $400B plus a year importing oil, yet $100B
> > 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.
I agree. Politicians go in with the best of intentions, I'm sure they're
not all evil/incompetent. But reality sets in quickly. It's very
entrenched, I have no doubt. Which is why drastic actions are called for.
No incumbents allowed, and 'none-of-the-above' would be a great start.
> > It's a matter of mindset. Like being pro-peace, not anti-war. Move
> > things, don't run away from them.
> > Hell, the USoA has spent what...$2-3T on Iraq/Afghanistan, for
> > oil production? Imagine what $2-3T would have accomplished had it went
> > 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?
Because we're complacent enough to allow it to continue.
> 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.
The only one that matters right now, yes.
I just can't wrap my mind around this suicidal kind of thinking. Each day
we push ahead with this garbage oil business, is a month (just a guess,
picked an arbitrary #, no sources) we're going to pay for it in spades down
the road. I just can't comprehend how killing one another is a better
choice than cooperating until we colonize space, and then you can go your
way, I go mine, and we've got more room than we could ever know what to do
We need to do it because we can, and it's necessary. Not because it's
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat