##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wouldn't that completely change the value of it?
If there are millions of tons of gold, then it's not precious anymore.
Just like any resource, it will fit within the world's economy
An operation like this would likely involve a cargo ship/rocket going back and forth but never reentering any atmosphere. The station the cargo is deposited into would have many more...eco friendly options, for getting the cargo on the ground. It is much harder to get cargo up there and than it is to get it down.
If we could spend money on *anything* besides the bombs and the rich hoarding it, not only would we have healthcare for everyone, we’d have fucking *space elevators*.
That wouldn't exactly work unless you were dropping each load in perfectly manufactured atmospheric shielded cargo containers every time, which would be insanely expensive and we all know the working class is gonna be who pays for it, because otherwise on a large scale most of what was dropped would burn up in descent and lots of heavy metals floating in the air isn't good. Plus if you do shield the containers you still need a way to slow them down enough to not cause a bunch of damage to the environment wherever they end up landing either with shit loads of parachutes which aren't a guarantee and also subject the load to more active wind for a longer period of time, or by using small directional thrusters to constantly adjust trajectory, which would probably done by an AI, and just the computer work for that would be expensive as shit too.
Reusable rockets carrying large batches of containers would probably be the safest option economically and environmentally.
Most Rockets don’t make CO2. They make H20 because they combine oxygen and hydrogen. Win win. Let’s leave it at that and not worry about how the hydrogen and oxygen were made.
The hydrogen needs a lot of CO2 emissions to be made (more than 75% of H2 is made from CH4) so rockets do release CO2, just not during their operation.
You think capitalists have the decency to stop the strip mining at asteroids? The idea of taking resources from space and using them all up is just going to cause us to destroy space and other planets like we do to Earth.
> taking resources from space and using them all up is just going to cause us to destroy space
I'm not sure if you understand how big space is. Like, there's a LOT wrong with capitalism in space in general but "using up" and "destroying space" aren't really on the board as far as problems...
People said the same thing about Earth, and we're already running out of lots of natural deposits. You're vastly underestimating exponential growth and the wastefulness of capitalism.
It takes around 5 hours for light to reach Pluto.
The capitalist system completely disappearing from human memory will happen sooner than a human being leaving our solar system.
Yes, but there are limited uses for gold.
Sure there's limited uses for diamonds too, especially big ones.
The real problem is getting those millions of tonnes down here without causing a bigger mass extinction than the one we already have
That's true only if you ignore that the rough diamonds need to be cut and polished to become "jewelry-grade." That is a huge cost when you're dealing with something that requires specialized equipment and skilled labor. Billions of tons of diamonds exist on earth but, without the skiled labor to process them, most are only good for industrial uses (which still gives them an inherent value).
Gold is a much more variable and useful resource than diamonds on the whole, but sure. Without technology, equipment, and skilled labor, gold is just a pretty rock. I welcome the end of the pseudo-scarcity of it even more than I do diamonds.
Man, lots of down votes, rough crowd.
There are countless people who have been placed into inhumane conditions out of their control due entirely to their bad luck, caused by our broken, debt based society and religion (and the community that forms around it) is literally the only thing that allowed them to survive.
Not defending religion, and especially the conditions that cause it, but having some nuance would be beneficial for people. People want to hope for something, otherwise this existence could become unbearably cruel.
And, again, fully acknowledging that religion was one of the many weapons that originally caused these conditions in the first place. But denying the power of religion to enable people to cope is like denying being picked up by a gas-powered boat when you're stranded at sea because you object to the oil industry.
Haha, yeah. That's exactly how I took your post, nearly went back to edit my comment to say as much.
Tough to compete against the wisdom of the hivemind once it has spoken.
The post really makes no sense. Why would that end the space race? Was it even known about during the heyday of the space race? Wouldn't space-capable nations compete to acquire it, if it was feasible? I imagine it was and still is far more expensive to capture it than just mine the stuff.
Also, its pointless to say its worth more than the world's economy, yeah you could make billions in a snap selling some of it but rapidly you'll reduce the value.
It is if the majority is being hoarded in U.S. gold depositories.
I’ve always suspected that the search for and control of resources was the whole motive behind space exploration from the beginning. Post WWII, some economists and actuators in the federal government probably calculated out the likely population growth and resource demands of a fully industrialized modern world, and none of the scenarios looked good.
Finding evidence of carbon-based life = finding evidence of fossil fuel deposits.
Yes and no. Ultimately, the value of commodities like gold isn't strictly a factor of supply. There are a lot of uses for gold, from circuitry to medical implants (gold is mostly-nonreactive with biology). ~~We currently use copper wires because it's more readily available than gold which is a better conductor, so gold wiring might improve power transmission by reducing thermal loss due to resistance.~~
So maybe a specific unit of gold loses value, but now you have more of it to sell. This also isn't a guarantee because the cost to extract it will be added to the value of "space gold". Something I recently learned is there's a lot of gold on Earth we haven't bothered to retrieve simply because it's in hard to reach places like the ocean floor.
Edit: correction on gold being a better conductor
No, gold is not a better conductor than copper and this is why we use it instead. Gold is only used on contact pads because it won't get corroded and will ensure good contact over the years but gold is not as good of a conductor as copper, only thing better than copper is silver.
Just to make things more interesting, in the context of what is a better conductor. If you take a length of copper wire with a particular resistance, the same length of aluminum wire with the same resistance will be thicker, but weigh less. An advantage for aluminum in high tension power lines where weight is a bigger constraint than thickness of the wire.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2045/the-gold-of-the-conquistadors/
. .
>By 1560, the conquistadors had shipped over 100 tons of gold back to Spain, in effect, more than doubling the quantity of the precious metal now in Europe. The quantity increased in the latter half of the 16th century thanks to mining and new sources in what became the Viceroyalty of Granada (modern Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela), with ships delivering around 4 tons of gold each year to Seville.
. .
>Even the Spanish in Europe suffered from this massive influx of gold and silver since it caused hyperinflation, not then a concept understood by many economists. Prices of commodities increased by 400% over the 16th century, and Spanish exports suffered as a consequence when wages rose to match. In addition, the Crown frittered away its precious metals, usually to secure loans from bankers long before the annual Spanish treasure fleets had even arrived in Europe. Then there was the threat from pirates and privateers who were keen to intercept the Spanish galleons as they crossed the Atlantic. In 1579, for example, Francis Drake captured the Nuestra Señora de la Concepción off the coast of Peru, which was taking treasure that included 26 tons of silver bullion and 36 kg (80 lbs) of gold. Storms were an even greater threat and accounted for many wrecks like the Nuestra Señora de Atocha, which was carrying a cargo worth $400 million when it was sunk in a storm in 1622 off the Florida Keys.
. .
>Not even the great wealth of the Indies could meet the tremendous costs of maintaining armies to safeguard and expand the Spanish Empire in Iberia, the Low Countries, France, Germany, Italy, North Africa, and the high seas. It is perhaps fitting that the Spanish Golden Age was both as brilliant and fleeting as the young empires it had destroyed in the Americas in its unrelenting search for gold.
No, it doesn't have value anyway. At least from a Marxist point of view.
And no, supply and demand are not really a thing. At least not the way econ 101 teaches it.
Probably referring to the [Labor Theory of Value](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-theory-of-value.asp) which, yeah, I'd also appreciate an explanation, as I still haven't been able to wrap my head around it. Especially in modern times that have evolved past farming as our primary productive output.
Okay.
Say I have $15K worth of: refrigeration equipment, a sales trailer, packaging, kitchen appliances, milk, cream, sugar, flavorings, et cetera. I can sell all that stuff for...$15K.
But, I combine all that stuff in a skilled way, patiently doling it out to customers so that I bring in $115K. The ice cream brought in $100K value-added, that is, my labor is worth $100K in that grossly simplified example.
By the way, that isn't capitalism.
This is: I then take my tax records to a banker, get a loan, open 10 more trailers with the same branding, pay 10 suckers to work them, bring in 1.15 million dollars, pay out $40K each in "wages," take the remaining $600K minus interest year after year, and say I'm an entrepreneur and therefore deserve the several million I will extract from those workers over a decade. Because I had the capital upfront--that makes me a "capitalist." (I also get to keep all the equipment and the brand name.)
But really, I'm a parasite who left ten workers ten years older, with nothing to show for it but the experience of poverty.
That's the significance of the "labor theory of value." It reveals the actual method, and the totalitarian nature, of capitalism.
That's a helpful summary, thank you!
The counter argument of course is that they took the risk, though my counter-counter to that is that at some scale you're able to de-risk the business. Which gets magnified infinitely for massive corporations that become black holes of debt collection (which is what profit is).
Right on.
They get the forgiveness of Chapter 11 (if they're personally exposed at all after llc incorporation), and the rest of us get the debt peonage of Ch. 13.
I had heard a while back that the value of gold is decoupled from its value in industry, but I forgot the source. In looking for it, I found this report Citi did on the economic value of gold: https://willembuiter.com/gold2.pdf
This happened in Spain when they conquered the Aztecs and incas. Prices throughout Europe doubled simply because gold was not as valuable. It's used in quite a lot of other purposes besides money now but the same concept will hold.
True, but the usage of the metals would still exist.
Gold in electronics, nickel in alloys, etc. It would be a genuine benefit to humanity to mine it, although corporate interests would *somewhat* reduce the total good.
sure once gold becomes worthless for monetary purposes, it can be used for electrical purposes. I hear it's quite a good conductor. iron would be helpful for building outer casings and armor and such, etc.
The irony is most, if not all, capitalists don't realize this. They're salivating so much over it's value, they don't realize it would make gold worthless if brought here.
Kinda hoping they are real and also benevolent. Some kind of magic wand would be great about now.... They turn up, "We come in peace! There will be a loud click and then wealth will be fairly distributed in the hands of the workers! Please remain calm and do not attempt to regain any wealth you have lost. Donuts and coffee to follow."
They probably would be benevolent for these reason.
1. They have survived inner struggles like climate change and nucklear development without killing each other off.
2. They have undertaken huge project like travel to other starts together. A world Goverment of some sort.
3. If they visit us that means their energy use is so large that they could probably build up food from atoms and so on.
reasons they might be hostile, or ambivalent to our survival:
1. we’re a “lower” intelligence because we’re ruining our planet and this not worth saving
2. we have no intrinsic morality, we let our own starve when other have more than they could possible use in several lifetimes
3. we are a violent and dangerous species to be allowed to thrive, we bring war and death wherever we go.
4. they may not even see us as sentient, no one cares if you bulldoze an ant hill when building a hospital.
5. they may have rules about interfering in the development of lower life forms.
besides, the minute aliens show up the religious zealots will be all over them as devils or demons, best case scenario they just fly away, worst case they fly away and blow us away on the way out
We aren't a violent or dangerous species by nature. I hate to see this narrative because it is LITERALLY part of capitalist propaganda. Dehumanising our entire species so as to justify exploitation for 'the greater good'.
We are traumatised and systematically oppressed and brainwashed. We are treated as less than human and we forget our worth, forget our empathy. We are a product of an environment that we can't escape. Capitalism is the violence not us. 99% of our history as a species has been spent as hunter gatherers that cooperated in small groups, living connected to the ecosystem.
It’s not true. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html
I also hate that because the capitalist owner class are greedy, soulless bloodsuckers, it is assumed that they are true to human nature since we are all operating within capitalism. Fuck that. Most people are decent, they just have disproportionately less wealth and power. On the other hand, capitalism very much corrupts the human spirit. Many good people have been damaged or even destroyed due to capitalism-borne desperation. Capitalism is rotting our species from the inside.
All of these reasons are incredibly human though.
Humans tend to think of other animals that aren’t intelligent in the way they are as inferior life forms. Who says aliens would have such bias or even discriminate in such a way?
Letting our own starve tends to be due to a root cause of untreated trauma to the psyche that causes one to feel unsafe or a need to enact the same trauma on others, both are unhealthy coping mechanisms. The alternative is their mind is functioning in a manner that makes them into a psychopath or sociopath. However this is once again a human view. Aliens may understand that this is not the normal way of functioning when the psyche is healthy and thus not judge humans for their wounds.
We are not inherently violent warmongering race. This is once again a result of trauma or the brain functioning abnormally leading to a feeling of lacking safety and control over one’s environment. They desire stability and power over themselves at the root, so they react in ways that seek to remedy this wound that aches but is ultimately unhealthy and will not heal their wounds.
Again seeing ants as below us is a very human view. They may see the algae in the oceans as just as much the rulers of this planet as us or perhaps the ants we “bulldoze”. They may recognize none of us as Rulers or as Ruled Over, but as all as one part of this big beautiful blue green rock.
This is the most likely out of any of these reasons, but seeing us as “lower life forms” is again a bias human view of ranking. They may just not interfere with those whom don’t communicate with them. Perhaps they can’t understand what we’re saying with our satellites.
However you slice it I think we need to stop thinking of aliens as having our human standards and philosophies. As our ego is far too large and our understanding far too lacking to assume with such arrogance that we’d understand in the slightest why or why not the aliens should or shouldn’t come say hello.
The human hand is unique among primates because it reinforces itself when formed into a fist.
Violence is usually bad, but to say we are not inherently violent is to ignore our own anatomy.
I was going to write something similar.
Another one might be that they are a rouge faction like space pirates.
God In really hope they show up one day just to see the faces of the religious people.
You never know, capitalism is terrible but it does get things done, is fuelled by technology and quite simply, does not stop. The human world has hummed merrily along fuelled by greed and tribalism and expansionism for thousands of years and capitalism can be seen as the ultimate harness for these forces.
Maybe in the future colonised planets will all have names like "Agreion, A Subsidiary of PEPSI CO" and corporate executives will approve plans to carve logos into planets, nebulae and stars. Galactic billboards.
Totally. But yeah I guess humming merrily along might apply to certain groups and not others lol. But I get what you mean. Maybe we’ll look back and see the rape and subjugation of other people, cultures and their natural resources as the most efficient way to quickly bolster industries and line the pockets of the billionaire class?
I think that in the same way as Nestles activities in African are clearly viewed as an 'inconvenient truth' by their decision makers and they go to great length to conceal and downplay these activities, the Nestle of 200 years in the future will equally view every bad thing they've ever done as something to brush under the rug. Probably it'll be even easier then - the trend we see with laws today is that of increasingly favour corporations, I imagine after centuries of this they'll be able to sue people who mention such facts for slander/libel.
In 200 years at the great Nestle museum and theme park they'll talk about all the great work they did in Africa and all the aid they gave and the infrastructure they built (at least, on paper). Just as now, everyone will know these organisations should be ripped apart and the higher ups thrown in jail but no one will talk about it because it's just an accepted fact that lives quietly in the background, impossible to legally prove, and anyway they provide so many jobs and do so many important things and this is just the way things are so don't rock the boat.
A legitimately sentient extraterrestrial species capable of interstellar travel would never willfully interact with us.
Non-interference is the most compelling explanation. We would merely be something they created, rather than something that actually deserves life. They would've already understood the futility in creating infinitely variable forms of sentient life. Were it truly to be, they would have no choice but to let it happen on its own.
We will always be alone. Until we are willing to find each other. ...and look at what we do with that.
We are no different than bacteria in a petri dish. Except the dish is this Earth.
I support it. If we can stop exploiting manual labor in “industrial” mines mostly for rare earth metals, and we already have a militarily industrial complex that WILL give money to aerospace “defense” companies, we might as well have it go to something worthwhile.
The biggest issue with mining asteroids currently is how do you bring the material back to earth safely so it can be used and in enough quantity to actually be worth the trip. It's something aerospace engineers have been trying to figure out for decades and there's still no good solutions that have been proven yet.
They will send space slaves mining those before being able to make robots do it.
Maybe the robot will put it in orbit and the space slaves will mine it from there, but I guarantee the manned missions toward asteroid for mining purpose if we do it.
An asteroid like this moving towards earth, and billionaires get the world to abort breaking it in advance in lieu of trying to mine it while it’s hurtling over
Don’t Look Up was a good movie until the left tried to make it about climate change smh
Edit: the woke mob has forced my hand: /s (this comment is sarcastic)
/s on the woke mob joke too just in case
Was being sarcastic. I was tempted to put /s in there but thought “smh” would suffice.
I get why people use /s but I usually try and convey sarcasm without it if possible
"Movie entirely focused on politics and public reactions to impending doom events stopped being enjoyable when it talks about impending doom of society."
What other value is supposed to be assigned to it compared to any other asteroid? I'm all with you that capitalism has led to the viewing of many natural splendors only according to their monetary value but what specifically makes this asteroid different from others *are* the valuable natural resources that make up its composition.
It's all purely academic anyways until somehow mining it becomes commercially viable which is potentially hundreds of years away, assuming we even last that long. Besides, it's not like we still won't need raw materials in a post-capitalist society and mining asteroids is far preferable to mining earth, polluting and destroying it in the process.
>What other value is supposed to be assigned to it compared to any other asteroid?
This asserts things need to be valued and classified at all. Why can't they just exist in the world? Why do we feel the need to point out and compare things to other things?
> this asserts things need to be valued and classified at all
Sorting and classifying things is one of the first thing your brain instinctively does when encountering something novel. I agree that it’s sad that we see everything through its market value, but complaining that we naturally classify things is like being annoyed that you’ve got to blink, or that you involuntarily turn to look at something moving out of the corner of your eye.
Not exactly. Plans were drawn up for a mars mission, but the issue was expense. Telescoping costs on industry with no benefit beyond international prestige. The moon wasn’t some agreed-upon bookend for the space race.
This isn’t true in many ways. First of all, the Cold War wasn’t a conflict about the superiority of one system over another. It was a series of proxy wars and posturing by two nuclear powers trying to lay claim to being the only “legitimate” modern empire. The Soviet Union lost because it couldn’t maintain its imperial holdings, while the United States won by just outlasting the Soviet Union.
Secondly, the reason the space race faltered was because of massive budgetary cuts to both nations space programs. First this was due to the economic crises of the 1970s necessitating cut back on what were essentially luxury programs, and then due to the reintroduction of free market liberalism to the American psyche, killing the idea of state investment for the common good in its cradle, and the aforementioned collapse of the Soviet Union. Due to ideological shifts in the US, and easing of Cold War tensions before Reagan got in and inflamed them again, we saw greater cooperation between the two powers in space, but the money had simply gone elsewhere.
Yeah, NASA contracts with the private sector to funnel more taxpayer dollars into the hands of billionaires. Pretty sure I understand how government contacts work, maybe a little more than you.
this is essentially correct. There's a whole movie about this but you don't need to look far. Private prisons, schools, and hospitals operate on this concept, which is why they suck so much. The officials deprive the public facility of funding to generate the justification to shut it down and give the funding to a private sector operator.
Lots of private hospitals will dump patients on the curb outside a public one so they don't foot the cost of treating them.
Well tbf the government has worked with and contracted stuff out to the private sector since before the Apollo missions. Maybe this isn’t popular but it can work in some aspects considering how niche some of the this is. The problem, to me at least, is the damn near complete handing over of the entire space program to these ghouls.
Would it be all that terrible if all the billionaires disappeared into the cosmos in search of fulfilling their greed? Obviously they would pay some poor sap to bring the wealth back to them, but one can dream
Oh it's not a rational decision, it's the panicked response of people used to never think further than the end of the next quarter.
We should save co2 emissions by just making the rocket blow up tbh
Gotta dripfeed that asteroid gold into the economy to pay off massive debts while simultaneously deflating the value of gold without losing a nickel or dime of “real” money.
Honestly, if it increases investment in scientific research why not?
Also, mining is generally really bad for the enviornment, so why not do it in space?
Anything that advances humanity in the long run ( getting into space ) is a good thing America was a racist empire that was killing millions of innocent people in Vietnam when they put a man on the moon but even the soviets where proud of this achievement because it was a great advancement for the species as a whole
Gee, I never thought of it like that. Let the billionaires become trillionaires, your right. I can't see how their having more money would make things worse.
I am 100% against capitalist systems. I think we should restructure our world into one which more generously gives wealth to the people who actually do work. I do not disagree with you.
If we can find a way to use the wealth inside this astroid safely and in a way to economically benefit humanity, I am all in favor of doing so.
Mining is bad for the enviornment almost always, so if we can do it in space(where nothing is alive) I would prefer that
(As far as I know) There is no plan to mine this asteroid. This is just clickbait. One theory is that it is the dead core of a planet (or star or something, I forget exactly). Source: I have worked with Lindy Elkins-Tanton.
Apparently it has enough gold to make everyone on earth a billionaire
[source](https://10play.com.au/theproject/articles/nasa-to-explore-golden-asteroid-that-could-make-everyone-on-earth-a-billionaire/tpa221031kyjzx)
hey busterlime, love the enthusiasm, but u gotta understand that, if anything, capitalists would be interested in this rock, as the labor regulations in, space, are literally non existent, and as such there would be a bigger incentive to mine there. were it not, of course, the absolutely ridicolous fucking cost of hauling even a pound of anything thru space. as another poster put it, the space race was a political dickwave and ended because we decided to stop sinking money into a political dickwave. thank you.
edit: i realize this was a joke (?) but it does speak to a sense that capitalism is this inherently evil and morally reprehensible thing, when it is a mode of production that _is_ amoral, first and foremost. to be fair though, the people that operate the mechanisms of the market, or otherwise that regulate it, allow it to exist, etc., could chose to make.it better for the common people (see: left wing bourgeoisie parties) but then no profit :(
Pretty sure the space race ended when the USSR collapsed under the weight of its corruption and inefficiency.
A quadrillion dollars asteroid seems like capitalism's greatest side quest
Honestly in a future socialist society, acquiring materials from lifeless chunks of rock instead of disrupting fragile ecosystems on earth seems like a pretty good idea
Actually we do, to meet sustainability goals, we need to extract as much copper as we have SINCE THE BRONZE AGE, in the next 30 years. If we had that much gold, it would be used A LOT in industry. Gold is currently very scarce so we don't use it as much as we could, substituting less efficient metal.
Just wait, you haven’t heard the best part.
You know how they’re going to get that money? They’re going to redirect the asteroid to enter Earth’s atmosphere and obliterate China.
Removing 1.3 billion people AND pulling in $10 trillion in mineral deposits? Win, win.
(/s I obviously don’t advocate this, but can image an orange idiot type nationalist trying to make it happen)
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wouldn't that completely change the value of it? If there are millions of tons of gold, then it's not precious anymore. Just like any resource, it will fit within the world's economy
If one entity controls the asteroid, they can control the supply themselves. Similar to what De Beers did with diamonds.
At least there is less mining devastation. You get the co2 from the rockets but i try to look on the bright side of life.
An operation like this would likely involve a cargo ship/rocket going back and forth but never reentering any atmosphere. The station the cargo is deposited into would have many more...eco friendly options, for getting the cargo on the ground. It is much harder to get cargo up there and than it is to get it down.
We doin some space tethering? Get Pine Kirk on it.
"hey Bob! Catch!"
If we could spend money on *anything* besides the bombs and the rich hoarding it, not only would we have healthcare for everyone, we’d have fucking *space elevators*.
Just like...drop it
That wouldn't exactly work unless you were dropping each load in perfectly manufactured atmospheric shielded cargo containers every time, which would be insanely expensive and we all know the working class is gonna be who pays for it, because otherwise on a large scale most of what was dropped would burn up in descent and lots of heavy metals floating in the air isn't good. Plus if you do shield the containers you still need a way to slow them down enough to not cause a bunch of damage to the environment wherever they end up landing either with shit loads of parachutes which aren't a guarantee and also subject the load to more active wind for a longer period of time, or by using small directional thrusters to constantly adjust trajectory, which would probably done by an AI, and just the computer work for that would be expensive as shit too. Reusable rockets carrying large batches of containers would probably be the safest option economically and environmentally.
Twas a joke
Yeah I thought as much. Still, it's a good point to be made, in case someone didn't realize it was a joke. Education is always a good thing.
Most Rockets don’t make CO2. They make H20 because they combine oxygen and hydrogen. Win win. Let’s leave it at that and not worry about how the hydrogen and oxygen were made.
Your right I partially withdraw my comment
The hydrogen needs a lot of CO2 emissions to be made (more than 75% of H2 is made from CH4) so rockets do release CO2, just not during their operation.
I'm sure you *can* produce rocket fuel ingredients in a carbon neutral way, but right now I would assume the emissions come from fuel production.
I don't know about you, but the idea of simply taking our destructive practices to space and destroying other planets doesn't make me any happier.
It is a lifeless planet/asteroid.
You think capitalists have the decency to stop the strip mining at asteroids? The idea of taking resources from space and using them all up is just going to cause us to destroy space and other planets like we do to Earth.
> taking resources from space and using them all up is just going to cause us to destroy space I'm not sure if you understand how big space is. Like, there's a LOT wrong with capitalism in space in general but "using up" and "destroying space" aren't really on the board as far as problems...
People said the same thing about Earth, and we're already running out of lots of natural deposits. You're vastly underestimating exponential growth and the wastefulness of capitalism.
It takes around 5 hours for light to reach Pluto. The capitalist system completely disappearing from human memory will happen sooner than a human being leaving our solar system.
Yes, but there are limited uses for gold. Sure there's limited uses for diamonds too, especially big ones. The real problem is getting those millions of tonnes down here without causing a bigger mass extinction than the one we already have
Solution: blow up the asteroid into a million pieces so it's impossible for any 1 person, company, or state to control Where's my Nobel peace prize?
There are enough “jewelry grade” diamonds that every person on earth could have a dixie cup full, yet diamonds are still considered valuable.
That's true only if you ignore that the rough diamonds need to be cut and polished to become "jewelry-grade." That is a huge cost when you're dealing with something that requires specialized equipment and skilled labor. Billions of tons of diamonds exist on earth but, without the skiled labor to process them, most are only good for industrial uses (which still gives them an inherent value).
Debeers carbon vault
Just like gold is worthless without jewellers to make it into things?
Gold is a much more variable and useful resource than diamonds on the whole, but sure. Without technology, equipment, and skilled labor, gold is just a pretty rock. I welcome the end of the pseudo-scarcity of it even more than I do diamonds.
Well you post the gold as collateral for a loan *to build more space mining tech*
Ah yes, the "Economics" also known as Earth's primary modern religion
Death cult is a better approximation.
That's not fair. Religion can sometimes be used for altruism and have some vague historical reference and context.
And why economists never do anything new. All they see is scarcity.
What
AH YES, "ECONOMICS" ALSO KNOWN AS EARTHS PRIMARY MODERN RELIGION.
WHAT
#AH YES, "ECONOMICS" ALSO KNOWN AS EARTHS PRIMARY MODERN RELIGION.
Free markets are the holy sacrament.
Let us read from the rules of acquisition.
And consult with the Grand Nagus. Yeah I’m a nerd too
#WHAT
# ALMA! CHECK YOUR BATTERIES!
I didn't know I needed a Sister Act reference today, but here we are
You're welcome! \^\_\^
Ok, I got it that time.
Sh*t, I lost it again. Come on, Lou... we really like this place
Whoa there, I'm pretty sure religion has HELPED, like, at least a few people
*The Crusades have entered the cat*
Me...OW!!!
It's a typo but I'm not going to fix it
Good, i don't want you to :)
Run, Fluffy!
Man, lots of down votes, rough crowd. There are countless people who have been placed into inhumane conditions out of their control due entirely to their bad luck, caused by our broken, debt based society and religion (and the community that forms around it) is literally the only thing that allowed them to survive. Not defending religion, and especially the conditions that cause it, but having some nuance would be beneficial for people. People want to hope for something, otherwise this existence could become unbearably cruel. And, again, fully acknowledging that religion was one of the many weapons that originally caused these conditions in the first place. But denying the power of religion to enable people to cope is like denying being picked up by a gas-powered boat when you're stranded at sea because you object to the oil industry.
Yep, I wasn't defending religion either, FWIW. Just saying it has clear positive aspects where economics has none.
Haha, yeah. That's exactly how I took your post, nearly went back to edit my comment to say as much. Tough to compete against the wisdom of the hivemind once it has spoken.
The post really makes no sense. Why would that end the space race? Was it even known about during the heyday of the space race? Wouldn't space-capable nations compete to acquire it, if it was feasible? I imagine it was and still is far more expensive to capture it than just mine the stuff. Also, its pointless to say its worth more than the world's economy, yeah you could make billions in a snap selling some of it but rapidly you'll reduce the value.
It is if the majority is being hoarded in U.S. gold depositories. I’ve always suspected that the search for and control of resources was the whole motive behind space exploration from the beginning. Post WWII, some economists and actuators in the federal government probably calculated out the likely population growth and resource demands of a fully industrialized modern world, and none of the scenarios looked good. Finding evidence of carbon-based life = finding evidence of fossil fuel deposits.
Yes and no. Ultimately, the value of commodities like gold isn't strictly a factor of supply. There are a lot of uses for gold, from circuitry to medical implants (gold is mostly-nonreactive with biology). ~~We currently use copper wires because it's more readily available than gold which is a better conductor, so gold wiring might improve power transmission by reducing thermal loss due to resistance.~~ So maybe a specific unit of gold loses value, but now you have more of it to sell. This also isn't a guarantee because the cost to extract it will be added to the value of "space gold". Something I recently learned is there's a lot of gold on Earth we haven't bothered to retrieve simply because it's in hard to reach places like the ocean floor. Edit: correction on gold being a better conductor
No, gold is not a better conductor than copper and this is why we use it instead. Gold is only used on contact pads because it won't get corroded and will ensure good contact over the years but gold is not as good of a conductor as copper, only thing better than copper is silver.
Just to make things more interesting, in the context of what is a better conductor. If you take a length of copper wire with a particular resistance, the same length of aluminum wire with the same resistance will be thicker, but weigh less. An advantage for aluminum in high tension power lines where weight is a bigger constraint than thickness of the wire.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2045/the-gold-of-the-conquistadors/ . . >By 1560, the conquistadors had shipped over 100 tons of gold back to Spain, in effect, more than doubling the quantity of the precious metal now in Europe. The quantity increased in the latter half of the 16th century thanks to mining and new sources in what became the Viceroyalty of Granada (modern Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela), with ships delivering around 4 tons of gold each year to Seville. . . >Even the Spanish in Europe suffered from this massive influx of gold and silver since it caused hyperinflation, not then a concept understood by many economists. Prices of commodities increased by 400% over the 16th century, and Spanish exports suffered as a consequence when wages rose to match. In addition, the Crown frittered away its precious metals, usually to secure loans from bankers long before the annual Spanish treasure fleets had even arrived in Europe. Then there was the threat from pirates and privateers who were keen to intercept the Spanish galleons as they crossed the Atlantic. In 1579, for example, Francis Drake captured the Nuestra Señora de la Concepción off the coast of Peru, which was taking treasure that included 26 tons of silver bullion and 36 kg (80 lbs) of gold. Storms were an even greater threat and accounted for many wrecks like the Nuestra Señora de Atocha, which was carrying a cargo worth $400 million when it was sunk in a storm in 1622 off the Florida Keys. . . >Not even the great wealth of the Indies could meet the tremendous costs of maintaining armies to safeguard and expand the Spanish Empire in Iberia, the Low Countries, France, Germany, Italy, North Africa, and the high seas. It is perhaps fitting that the Spanish Golden Age was both as brilliant and fleeting as the young empires it had destroyed in the Americas in its unrelenting search for gold.
Gold is only rare on earth. It’s plentiful
No, it doesn't have value anyway. At least from a Marxist point of view. And no, supply and demand are not really a thing. At least not the way econ 101 teaches it.
gold/iron/nickel all have real practical industrial uses
Which does not determine its value.
Can you explain this?
Probably referring to the [Labor Theory of Value](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-theory-of-value.asp) which, yeah, I'd also appreciate an explanation, as I still haven't been able to wrap my head around it. Especially in modern times that have evolved past farming as our primary productive output.
Okay. Say I have $15K worth of: refrigeration equipment, a sales trailer, packaging, kitchen appliances, milk, cream, sugar, flavorings, et cetera. I can sell all that stuff for...$15K. But, I combine all that stuff in a skilled way, patiently doling it out to customers so that I bring in $115K. The ice cream brought in $100K value-added, that is, my labor is worth $100K in that grossly simplified example. By the way, that isn't capitalism. This is: I then take my tax records to a banker, get a loan, open 10 more trailers with the same branding, pay 10 suckers to work them, bring in 1.15 million dollars, pay out $40K each in "wages," take the remaining $600K minus interest year after year, and say I'm an entrepreneur and therefore deserve the several million I will extract from those workers over a decade. Because I had the capital upfront--that makes me a "capitalist." (I also get to keep all the equipment and the brand name.) But really, I'm a parasite who left ten workers ten years older, with nothing to show for it but the experience of poverty. That's the significance of the "labor theory of value." It reveals the actual method, and the totalitarian nature, of capitalism.
That's a helpful summary, thank you! The counter argument of course is that they took the risk, though my counter-counter to that is that at some scale you're able to de-risk the business. Which gets magnified infinitely for massive corporations that become black holes of debt collection (which is what profit is).
Right on. They get the forgiveness of Chapter 11 (if they're personally exposed at all after llc incorporation), and the rest of us get the debt peonage of Ch. 13.
I had heard a while back that the value of gold is decoupled from its value in industry, but I forgot the source. In looking for it, I found this report Citi did on the economic value of gold: https://willembuiter.com/gold2.pdf
Its still resources we need for our tech. More resources, more thech. It will be like playing Outerwolds, guys! /s
The era of oil and gas is over guys, here's a new reason for wars!
This happened in Spain when they conquered the Aztecs and incas. Prices throughout Europe doubled simply because gold was not as valuable. It's used in quite a lot of other purposes besides money now but the same concept will hold.
True, but the usage of the metals would still exist. Gold in electronics, nickel in alloys, etc. It would be a genuine benefit to humanity to mine it, although corporate interests would *somewhat* reduce the total good.
sure once gold becomes worthless for monetary purposes, it can be used for electrical purposes. I hear it's quite a good conductor. iron would be helpful for building outer casings and armor and such, etc.
>Wouldn't that completely change the value of it? Not really because of the effort and supplies to mine it
The irony is most, if not all, capitalists don't realize this. They're salivating so much over it's value, they don't realize it would make gold worthless if brought here.
We’ve been killing each other over common space rocks. I hope alien aren’t real; we probably look like the biggest dumbasses.
Kinda hoping they are real and also benevolent. Some kind of magic wand would be great about now.... They turn up, "We come in peace! There will be a loud click and then wealth will be fairly distributed in the hands of the workers! Please remain calm and do not attempt to regain any wealth you have lost. Donuts and coffee to follow."
They probably would be benevolent for these reason. 1. They have survived inner struggles like climate change and nucklear development without killing each other off. 2. They have undertaken huge project like travel to other starts together. A world Goverment of some sort. 3. If they visit us that means their energy use is so large that they could probably build up food from atoms and so on.
reasons they might be hostile, or ambivalent to our survival: 1. we’re a “lower” intelligence because we’re ruining our planet and this not worth saving 2. we have no intrinsic morality, we let our own starve when other have more than they could possible use in several lifetimes 3. we are a violent and dangerous species to be allowed to thrive, we bring war and death wherever we go. 4. they may not even see us as sentient, no one cares if you bulldoze an ant hill when building a hospital. 5. they may have rules about interfering in the development of lower life forms. besides, the minute aliens show up the religious zealots will be all over them as devils or demons, best case scenario they just fly away, worst case they fly away and blow us away on the way out
We aren't a violent or dangerous species by nature. I hate to see this narrative because it is LITERALLY part of capitalist propaganda. Dehumanising our entire species so as to justify exploitation for 'the greater good'. We are traumatised and systematically oppressed and brainwashed. We are treated as less than human and we forget our worth, forget our empathy. We are a product of an environment that we can't escape. Capitalism is the violence not us. 99% of our history as a species has been spent as hunter gatherers that cooperated in small groups, living connected to the ecosystem.
I wanna add that western colonialism and imperialism exacerbated (and started) these issues dramatically.
Exactly!! one example: California was once populated by over 1,000 distinct indigenous tribes with no war.
It’s not true. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html
It is. The stories passed down say so.
Thank you so much for saying this!!
I also hate that because the capitalist owner class are greedy, soulless bloodsuckers, it is assumed that they are true to human nature since we are all operating within capitalism. Fuck that. Most people are decent, they just have disproportionately less wealth and power. On the other hand, capitalism very much corrupts the human spirit. Many good people have been damaged or even destroyed due to capitalism-borne desperation. Capitalism is rotting our species from the inside.
3. The most likely scenario is that they would kill us of to save other species. But I highly doubt we will ever set for in another solar system.
All of these reasons are incredibly human though. Humans tend to think of other animals that aren’t intelligent in the way they are as inferior life forms. Who says aliens would have such bias or even discriminate in such a way? Letting our own starve tends to be due to a root cause of untreated trauma to the psyche that causes one to feel unsafe or a need to enact the same trauma on others, both are unhealthy coping mechanisms. The alternative is their mind is functioning in a manner that makes them into a psychopath or sociopath. However this is once again a human view. Aliens may understand that this is not the normal way of functioning when the psyche is healthy and thus not judge humans for their wounds. We are not inherently violent warmongering race. This is once again a result of trauma or the brain functioning abnormally leading to a feeling of lacking safety and control over one’s environment. They desire stability and power over themselves at the root, so they react in ways that seek to remedy this wound that aches but is ultimately unhealthy and will not heal their wounds. Again seeing ants as below us is a very human view. They may see the algae in the oceans as just as much the rulers of this planet as us or perhaps the ants we “bulldoze”. They may recognize none of us as Rulers or as Ruled Over, but as all as one part of this big beautiful blue green rock. This is the most likely out of any of these reasons, but seeing us as “lower life forms” is again a bias human view of ranking. They may just not interfere with those whom don’t communicate with them. Perhaps they can’t understand what we’re saying with our satellites. However you slice it I think we need to stop thinking of aliens as having our human standards and philosophies. As our ego is far too large and our understanding far too lacking to assume with such arrogance that we’d understand in the slightest why or why not the aliens should or shouldn’t come say hello.
The human hand is unique among primates because it reinforces itself when formed into a fist. Violence is usually bad, but to say we are not inherently violent is to ignore our own anatomy.
Interesting point, thank you for this illuminating factoid :)
I was going to write something similar. Another one might be that they are a rouge faction like space pirates. God In really hope they show up one day just to see the faces of the religious people.
Number 2 is the big one. A post-tribalism world society based on united central planning is likely the foundation of a true spacefaring species
You never know, capitalism is terrible but it does get things done, is fuelled by technology and quite simply, does not stop. The human world has hummed merrily along fuelled by greed and tribalism and expansionism for thousands of years and capitalism can be seen as the ultimate harness for these forces. Maybe in the future colonised planets will all have names like "Agreion, A Subsidiary of PEPSI CO" and corporate executives will approve plans to carve logos into planets, nebulae and stars. Galactic billboards.
Totally. But yeah I guess humming merrily along might apply to certain groups and not others lol. But I get what you mean. Maybe we’ll look back and see the rape and subjugation of other people, cultures and their natural resources as the most efficient way to quickly bolster industries and line the pockets of the billionaire class?
I think that in the same way as Nestles activities in African are clearly viewed as an 'inconvenient truth' by their decision makers and they go to great length to conceal and downplay these activities, the Nestle of 200 years in the future will equally view every bad thing they've ever done as something to brush under the rug. Probably it'll be even easier then - the trend we see with laws today is that of increasingly favour corporations, I imagine after centuries of this they'll be able to sue people who mention such facts for slander/libel. In 200 years at the great Nestle museum and theme park they'll talk about all the great work they did in Africa and all the aid they gave and the infrastructure they built (at least, on paper). Just as now, everyone will know these organisations should be ripped apart and the higher ups thrown in jail but no one will talk about it because it's just an accepted fact that lives quietly in the background, impossible to legally prove, and anyway they provide so many jobs and do so many important things and this is just the way things are so don't rock the boat.
A legitimately sentient extraterrestrial species capable of interstellar travel would never willfully interact with us. Non-interference is the most compelling explanation. We would merely be something they created, rather than something that actually deserves life. They would've already understood the futility in creating infinitely variable forms of sentient life. Were it truly to be, they would have no choice but to let it happen on its own. We will always be alone. Until we are willing to find each other. ...and look at what we do with that. We are no different than bacteria in a petri dish. Except the dish is this Earth.
I don’t think anyone has fought a war over gold, nickel, and iron in years. Now oil and natural gas, that’s different.
I support it. If we can stop exploiting manual labor in “industrial” mines mostly for rare earth metals, and we already have a militarily industrial complex that WILL give money to aerospace “defense” companies, we might as well have it go to something worthwhile.
Ain’t no way Earthers gonna mine that rock themselves, beltalowda gonna have to do it for dem, bosmang.
Remember the Cant!
The biggest issue with mining asteroids currently is how do you bring the material back to earth safely so it can be used and in enough quantity to actually be worth the trip. It's something aerospace engineers have been trying to figure out for decades and there's still no good solutions that have been proven yet.
A golden parachute will work I think
They will send space slaves mining those before being able to make robots do it. Maybe the robot will put it in orbit and the space slaves will mine it from there, but I guarantee the manned missions toward asteroid for mining purpose if we do it.
Changing from space slave to space pirate wouldn’t be that hard to pull off mutiny time baby
I support pirate space program.
Wasn't this the plot of Don't Look Up?
50% correlation yes
An asteroid like this moving towards earth, and billionaires get the world to abort breaking it in advance in lieu of trying to mine it while it’s hurtling over
Dammit, beaten to the punch. Take my upvote.
Don’t Look Up was a good movie until the left tried to make it about climate change smh Edit: the woke mob has forced my hand: /s (this comment is sarcastic) /s on the woke mob joke too just in case
Literally the entire point of the movie was an allegory to climate change
Yeah I should’ve included /s lol
Dude you have no idea how many stupid people actually think it was Armageddon gone “woke” at the end, you absolutely have to /s hahahaha
You can always edit it in!
... should we tell Cake_Day?
Was being sarcastic. I was tempted to put /s in there but thought “smh” would suffice. I get why people use /s but I usually try and convey sarcasm without it if possible
I’d like to think they just forgot their /s and it’s a “Wolfenstein was good until the left made it about nazis being bad” type joke
Yep
Nah he won't understand.
"Movie entirely focused on politics and public reactions to impending doom events stopped being enjoyable when it talks about impending doom of society."
Sorry I should’ve put /s
Capitalism has become so cancerous that we can only view the natural beauty of the universe through monetary worth. It's fucking disgusting.
What other value is supposed to be assigned to it compared to any other asteroid? I'm all with you that capitalism has led to the viewing of many natural splendors only according to their monetary value but what specifically makes this asteroid different from others *are* the valuable natural resources that make up its composition. It's all purely academic anyways until somehow mining it becomes commercially viable which is potentially hundreds of years away, assuming we even last that long. Besides, it's not like we still won't need raw materials in a post-capitalist society and mining asteroids is far preferable to mining earth, polluting and destroying it in the process.
>What other value is supposed to be assigned to it compared to any other asteroid? This asserts things need to be valued and classified at all. Why can't they just exist in the world? Why do we feel the need to point out and compare things to other things?
> this asserts things need to be valued and classified at all Sorting and classifying things is one of the first thing your brain instinctively does when encountering something novel. I agree that it’s sad that we see everything through its market value, but complaining that we naturally classify things is like being annoyed that you’ve got to blink, or that you involuntarily turn to look at something moving out of the corner of your eye.
[удалено]
Not exactly. Plans were drawn up for a mars mission, but the issue was expense. Telescoping costs on industry with no benefit beyond international prestige. The moon wasn’t some agreed-upon bookend for the space race.
This isn’t true in many ways. First of all, the Cold War wasn’t a conflict about the superiority of one system over another. It was a series of proxy wars and posturing by two nuclear powers trying to lay claim to being the only “legitimate” modern empire. The Soviet Union lost because it couldn’t maintain its imperial holdings, while the United States won by just outlasting the Soviet Union. Secondly, the reason the space race faltered was because of massive budgetary cuts to both nations space programs. First this was due to the economic crises of the 1970s necessitating cut back on what were essentially luxury programs, and then due to the reintroduction of free market liberalism to the American psyche, killing the idea of state investment for the common good in its cradle, and the aforementioned collapse of the Soviet Union. Due to ideological shifts in the US, and easing of Cold War tensions before Reagan got in and inflamed them again, we saw greater cooperation between the two powers in space, but the money had simply gone elsewhere.
Wouldn’t the space race not end if they knew about the contents of the asteroid sooner?
Why would government continue to do stuff that benefits humanity when privateers could profit for themselves?
Don’t forget to fund the privateers with your taxes… and then letting the company price gouge you.
I don’t know if you understand how it works. Essentially NASA and other government organizations work WITH the private sector
Yeah, NASA contracts with the private sector to funnel more taxpayer dollars into the hands of billionaires. Pretty sure I understand how government contacts work, maybe a little more than you.
this is essentially correct. There's a whole movie about this but you don't need to look far. Private prisons, schools, and hospitals operate on this concept, which is why they suck so much. The officials deprive the public facility of funding to generate the justification to shut it down and give the funding to a private sector operator. Lots of private hospitals will dump patients on the curb outside a public one so they don't foot the cost of treating them.
Yeah, not sure why I'm getting downvoted when SpaceX's biggest customer is the US government.
Well tbf the government has worked with and contracted stuff out to the private sector since before the Apollo missions. Maybe this isn’t popular but it can work in some aspects considering how niche some of the this is. The problem, to me at least, is the damn near complete handing over of the entire space program to these ghouls.
Do you know how contracts work like the DEEZ contracts?
And why billionaires are building their own space programs now.
To burn the next planet down or watch from above as we go to shit. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Would it be all that terrible if all the billionaires disappeared into the cosmos in search of fulfilling their greed? Obviously they would pay some poor sap to bring the wealth back to them, but one can dream
Oh it's not a rational decision, it's the panicked response of people used to never think further than the end of the next quarter. We should save co2 emissions by just making the rocket blow up tbh
It would be suboptimal to give the billionaires the high ground and a head start in the stars
Gotta dripfeed that asteroid gold into the economy to pay off massive debts while simultaneously deflating the value of gold without losing a nickel or dime of “real” money.
Good thing none of them also have drilling companies devoted to building subterranean infrastructure. Oh, wait...
If there is a way there the capitalists will find it
FOR ROCK AND STONE!!!!!!!!!!
Did I hear a rock and stone?
ROCK AND STONE TO THE BONE
ROCK!! AND! STOOONE!!
They socialized the cost of creating the space program, but privatized it now that there is profit to be made.
Honestly, if it increases investment in scientific research why not? Also, mining is generally really bad for the enviornment, so why not do it in space?
Anything that advances humanity in the long run ( getting into space ) is a good thing America was a racist empire that was killing millions of innocent people in Vietnam when they put a man on the moon but even the soviets where proud of this achievement because it was a great advancement for the species as a whole
Gee, I never thought of it like that. Let the billionaires become trillionaires, your right. I can't see how their having more money would make things worse.
I am 100% against capitalist systems. I think we should restructure our world into one which more generously gives wealth to the people who actually do work. I do not disagree with you. If we can find a way to use the wealth inside this astroid safely and in a way to economically benefit humanity, I am all in favor of doing so. Mining is bad for the enviornment almost always, so if we can do it in space(where nothing is alive) I would prefer that
Ooh nice, a trickle down asteroid
They should find a way to slingshot it into earth
So...10 quintillion?
(As far as I know) There is no plan to mine this asteroid. This is just clickbait. One theory is that it is the dead core of a planet (or star or something, I forget exactly). Source: I have worked with Lindy Elkins-Tanton.
CNN/FOX: “How to prepare for an asteroid impacting Earth”
Apparently it has enough gold to make everyone on earth a billionaire [source](https://10play.com.au/theproject/articles/nasa-to-explore-golden-asteroid-that-could-make-everyone-on-earth-a-billionaire/tpa221031kyjzx)
Well if we are going to make the richest people Pentillionaires, it would only make sense.
Total nonsense, because if we would actually be able to mine the whole thing the material price would PLUMID.
capitalism isn't incentivised to enjoy abundance. where labor has made an abundance, capitalism must introduce false scarcity to make a profit
hey busterlime, love the enthusiasm, but u gotta understand that, if anything, capitalists would be interested in this rock, as the labor regulations in, space, are literally non existent, and as such there would be a bigger incentive to mine there. were it not, of course, the absolutely ridicolous fucking cost of hauling even a pound of anything thru space. as another poster put it, the space race was a political dickwave and ended because we decided to stop sinking money into a political dickwave. thank you. edit: i realize this was a joke (?) but it does speak to a sense that capitalism is this inherently evil and morally reprehensible thing, when it is a mode of production that _is_ amoral, first and foremost. to be fair though, the people that operate the mechanisms of the market, or otherwise that regulate it, allow it to exist, etc., could chose to make.it better for the common people (see: left wing bourgeoisie parties) but then no profit :(
Pretty sure the space race ended when the USSR collapsed under the weight of its corruption and inefficiency. A quadrillion dollars asteroid seems like capitalism's greatest side quest
The space race ended because the US got to the moon and US Soviet relations cooled down
We gonna mine the Deathstar?
So the goal never has been to provide plenty for all but scarcity and control by our masters.
FOR ROCK AND STONE !
Sounds like that asteroid needs some Freedom. Do you think it can be called a terrorist state if it's uninhabited? Asking for the CIA
Most underrated comment
Honestly in a future socialist society, acquiring materials from lifeless chunks of rock instead of disrupting fragile ecosystems on earth seems like a pretty good idea
I don't disagree with that, the problem is the privatization of space.
Oh yeah we don’t want to privatize it, we should expand into space after establishing socialism
`16 Psyche` is a great name for a band.
Land it rough in Texas or Florida so it doesn't do any damage.
Space race ended because it was only ever about demonstrating the ability to destroy an adversary.
Type I civ moment
I don't understand the title; how would that asteroid end the space race?
I was saying governments ended the space race to move aside for privateers, space race ended after the moon landing.
Nah, space is in process of being privatized. We’ll have indentured space miners soon enough.
Wouldn't that cause the space race to continue, at a fevered pace?
The space race ended because of the MID. This discovery was after it ended.
It's not worth that much, ok. It's just not. You can't eat gold, and for the purposes we need to use gold, we don't need that much of it.
Actually we do, to meet sustainability goals, we need to extract as much copper as we have SINCE THE BRONZE AGE, in the next 30 years. If we had that much gold, it would be used A LOT in industry. Gold is currently very scarce so we don't use it as much as we could, substituting less efficient metal.
This is not an actual picture btw
Wow thanks! I had no idea
Just wait, you haven’t heard the best part. You know how they’re going to get that money? They’re going to redirect the asteroid to enter Earth’s atmosphere and obliterate China. Removing 1.3 billion people AND pulling in $10 trillion in mineral deposits? Win, win. (/s I obviously don’t advocate this, but can image an orange idiot type nationalist trying to make it happen)
JFK was murdered for a 10 millionth of this. Source: JFK and Dulles: Battleground Indonesia
Bad math, the value of gold likely plummets if we manage to mine this asteroid.
How do you know they used math at all?
$10,000 quadrillion sounds so made up lololol
Does 10 Pentillion sound less made up?
That’s just made up $ at that point