From: randy (cryofan@mylinuxisp.com)
Date: Fri Feb 28 2003 - 08:02:24 MST
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 03:10:16 EST, you wrote:
>I believe the author was stating that the greater resources are closer, at
>hand, on the ocean floor; while space colonization and exploration might cost
>trillions and will not happen soon, in any case.
>
>Its an audacious opinion, by the author and engineer (Graham Hawkes) and the
>damned thing about it, looking at it from pure economic justification (which
>in itself is never pure) oceanic exploitation might be far more rewarding
>over the next 300 years, then the solar system (no bets!).
>
Right. Space will great, 300 years from now, when we can modify our
bodies as needed. But for the immediate future, we need more energy,
and more science, and the ocean looks like a better playground in that
respect.
>I did not take the meaning of the author to believe that we need extract HEł
>for fusion reactors, from the ocean floor; but I suspect, that Hawkes must
>have meant methane gas hydrates, which exist in fantastic amounts, if the
>estimates are accurate. He is also gung-ho for extremophiles for use in
>biotechnology and medicine.
>
>For someone like myself, who has been a space nut since I was a preschooler;
>its odd finding myself siding with the author. I think I will just lay down
>till the feeling goes away.
>
>
>
>
>Wingcat and Anders Sandburg discussed the Wired article:
><<--- Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:25:19PM -0000,
>> cryofan@mylinuxisp.com wrote:
>> > Yeah, I totally agree:
>> >
>> >
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.03/view.html?pg=2
>>
>> Yes, although I doubt subsea He3 mining will ever be
>> a hit. Also, the
>> sea is an even more hostile place than space - it is
>> a very active
>> chemical environment under high pressure, which
>> requires more extreme
>> protection than most space environments.
>>
>> Space is important because it is *space*. For
>> resources, yes, go to the
>> sea.
>
>That's exactly the attitude they're attacking, though
>I believe their attack to be flawed. Almost all of
>their criticisms can be traced to the way we have
>attempted to go to space - for instance, NASA - rather
>than the potential of space itself. Had something
>like NASA been in place with regards to Earth's
>oceans for the past 40 years, I dare say there would
>be a flag and a few more pieces of junk at the deepest
>point of the Earth's oceans, but nobody would have yet
>come near the Titanic, for example, though some
>multi-billion dollar plans to do so would have been
>floated.
>
>Which is not to say that oceanic applications of
>science could not use more investigation. For
>instance, robot deep sea submarines (or even sea floor
>crawlers) to hunt for significant concentrations of
>certain valuable minerals and/or energy. Or possibly
>research into cheap but durable aquatic residences, to
>allow population pressures in certain coastal cities
>to be partially eased by expanding into the sea, while
>still keeping people relatively close to the trade
>hubs that are their reason for living near the cities
>in the first place..>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 08:06:31 MST