Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 631K
  • Politics 
finesse said:
Asteroid belt would have higher quality ore that was easier to mine since the heavy blasting has been done. Takes less fuel coming back than it does from the moon because of the gravity well.
Click to expand...
Yes, but people can get to the moon in less than 3-5 years. Before we can even think about mining asteroids, we have to invent automated mining rigs for use in space -- and the best place to do that would be on the moon, not on the asteroid belt 3 years away.

I don't know what they are looking for on the moon, but we wouldn't be bringing back iron. I suspect what would be retrieved would be ore with a very high value density. Not diamonds, but same idea -- you can pack a lot of $$ worth of diamonds into a small rocket blasting off.
 
Musk and DeBeers will cut a deal on the diamonds. Without the price controls, diamonds would drop quite a bit.

ETA I do wonder about your rationale that space mining rigs should be designed to work in a heavy gravity field.
 
finesse said:
Musk and DeBeers will cut a deal on the diamonds. Without the price controls, diamonds would drop quite a bit.

ETA I do wonder about your rationale that space mining rigs should be designed to work in a heavy gravity field.
Click to expand...
The diamonds were just an example. I think you're responding in kind.

I don't have any idea of whether mining rigs should be designed to work in a gravity field (moon is not a heavy gravity field, I don't think). I'm just saying that one obvious advantage of the moon is its proximity, and further that it would be very hard to mine asteroids before mining the moon. My intuition is that gravity wouldn't have that much effect on a mining rig -- atmosphere would be a bigger factor, I think, as would the automation aspect.
 


[At current birth rates, the world population will continue to grow until about 2080, when it is expected to peak around 10.8 billion people.

But the decline in birth rates has also been accompanied by a similarly steep decline in infant mortality, which obviates the need to have more children in order to have a better chance of having kids who live long enough to reproduce.

data.worldbank.org

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data
data.worldbank.org data.worldbank.org

IMG_6028.jpeg

IMG_6027.jpeg

What Musk and the fertility rate warriors keep ignoring (or more glossing over) is that the population in Africa is still growing very fast. They just don’t like where it is growing.

IMG_6029.jpeg
IMG_6030.jpeg

The population is already too great for our resources but an eventually declining population also will have long-term impacts that do need to be planned for and reckoned with.
 
nycfan said:


[At current birth rates, the world population will continue to grow until about 2080, when it is expected to peak around 10.8 billion people.

But the decline in birth rates has also been accompanied by a similarly steep decline in infant mortality, which obviates the need to have more children in order to have a better chance of having kids who live long enough to reproduce.

data.worldbank.org

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data
data.worldbank.org data.worldbank.org

IMG_6028.jpeg

IMG_6027.jpeg

What Musk and the fertility rate warriors keep ignoring (or more glossing over) is that the population in Africa is still growing very fast. They just don’t like where it is growing.

IMG_6029.jpeg
IMG_6030.jpeg

The population is already too great for our resources but an eventually declining population also will have long-term impacts that do need to be planned for and reckoned with.
Click to expand...

Counterpoint to Musk’s fixation on fertility rates (I think this particular view is too simplistic but I also think that technology may also ease economic impact of declining human population of the earth):

Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better​

A future with fewer people offers increased opportunity and a healthier environment

www.scientificamerican.com

Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better

A future with fewer people offers increased opportunity and a healthier environment
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com

“… As the human population has doubled over the past 50 years, wildlife populations have plummeted by an average of 69 percent.We’ve already altered at least 70 percent of Earth’s land, with some reports putting that number at 97 percent. Our activities have driven wildlife from their homes and destroyed irreplaceable ecosystems. …”
 
Calheel said:
Gross. I guess that makes it a little better for the woman, maybe.
Click to expand...
I have to say that the rumors are entirely unsupported... Except for literally everything about Musk screaming "I don't have sex even though I've got more wealth than any person alive."
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Depends on 60% of what.
Click to expand...
Truth. She's got a three bedroom Manhattan apartment and a nanny. She's also receiving child support payments from a New York chiropractor from a previous baby. Of course this is his 9th out of wedlock child. They both sound a little irresponsible in the traditional sense but monetarily, I doubt his kids want for anything. And there's a very good chance that the lack of a stable relationship absolutely destroys many of their lives.

It's very likely that Musk let himself get bamboozled by the V. He certainly isn't the first and won't be the last to pay for that mistake. Of course he can afford it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top