Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Harbinger2001 t1_iy8u9g6 wrote

Colonizing space requires a compelling reason for the colonists to endure the hardships required. Since the resources can’t be profitably repatriated to benefit Earth, there must be some other reason found.

And just because Earth still has vast resources doesn’t make it ‘post-scarcity’ which requires advances in power generation, automation and social structures that have nothing to do with resource availability.

2

ajabardar1 t1_iy8v819 wrote

why can't the resources be profitable?

astronauts go into space all the time, mostly for human progress.

2

Harbinger2001 t1_iy97gzl wrote

Fewer than 600 people have been to space. Colonization requires a whole new level of heavy lift capability and a destination worth going to. We are going to have nothing but government funded temporary staffed outposts for the forceable future. For people to permanently move, there needs to be a reason for them to go.

As for the resources, the issue it you have to have a customer for them. The only customers are on Earth and no space-based ore extraction can compete on price. On the flip-side, no Earth based extraction can compete for space construction, but that market will be minuscule in comparison. So it can be profitable- but not if we’re talking ‘benefit to Earth’

1

ajabardar1 t1_iy99mjg wrote

and how many are at this very moment in line for a chance to go? how many applicants for astronaut does nasa get every year? how many does chinese space agency?

there have been 600 people in space not because lack of willing candidates that is for sure.

depends massively on the future pricing of mining ore on earth. one can even deduce that needed regulatory restrictions on environmental damaging mining operations is a must have if we want to keep the earth habitable for humans.

unless you think everyone should either live in a cave or reduce the number of people by 90%.

2