site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   28548 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don’t have time to detail everything I think you have wrong but re SpaceX one thing you leave out as a potential economic case is space mining. Could be insanely valuable.

Also most financial analysts value Starlink quite highly. Maybe you are missing something they are not.

The logistics of sending any kind of vehicle or probe to a specific asteroid in the asteroid belt for mining are so ludicrously expensive in terms of energy/momentum spend that the astrophysics community has largely treated space mining as a joke proposal for science fiction books since about the 60s - and that's before you get to the economics problems (there is virtually nothing in space worth mining and returning to Earth that couldn't be extracted more profitably on Earth in the first place). The case for space mining is a complete, unsalvageable disaster. "Short" version:

  • Getting places in space is convoluted to begin with, and all trips beyond Earth orbit require carefully calculated momentum assists from various heavenly bodies. The error on these calculations is pretty large relative to the size of most asteroids. It's infeasible to pre-plan a route so specific and so accurate that one could send a spacecraft to a specific asteroid in the asteroid belt once, let alone reliably at different times. The energy and time cost for any such trip would be enormous as well.
  • Long, energy-intensive trips necessitate bringing a lot with you. If an asteroid mining mission is crewed, you need food and water for many months, radiation shielding, a mechanism to avoid significant harm due to bone and muscle density losses, etc - space is extremely unfriendly, and long voyages are not desirable.
  • And these trips are one-way. You will need an implausibly vast store of resources and a powerful engine to make it back to Earth in any reasonable amount of time. It's barely possible today to bring enough fuel for a two-way trip in an extremely light craft to a much closer celestial body (the moon). You'd need a bunch of fuel-only pre-flights to stockpile the resources needed to get to one asteroid and back, and substantially more than that to impart enough momentum on mined asteroid fragments that they can be shipped anywhere useful.
  • Quick side note: you are NOT going to planets or planetary satellites for resource extraction. The gravity wells around planets make these almost-guaranteed to be one-way trips. I guess in principle it's not impossible to set up a planetary or satellite resource extraction operation, but it already takes civilization-scale logistics to get off of Earth - we'd be well into science fiction by the time you could practically mine planets or satellites of planets.
  • You get to your asteroid, and... It's mostly silicon, iron, nickel, and other crap you can dig up back on Earth for way, way cheaper. There might be some high-value exotic elements like Californium that are kinda valuable, but how do you find any?
  • You would need survey equipment, a bunch of which has to be entirely novel, since a lot of Earth-based survey techniques depend on liquid injection.
  • You also need digging tools. I am actually pretty confident you can build those from mostly raw materials available on most asteroids, and even do so economically. I am less confident about the thermodynamics and robustness of such equipment being good enough to extract meaningful quantities of anything out of any asteroids.
  • Now you need to do something with all the stuff you mined. Remember, there's virtually nothing you can profitably send back to Earth, and what you do find has such a limited market that your mission to one asteroid cost orders of magnitude more than the TAM for the material. There's maybe, maybe a plausible case to be made for antimatter, presuming we had a useful application for it by the time this whole mess is feasible - but I bet it would be cheaper to just invent a way to make and capture antimatter on Earth.
  • So basically, you can only really use the resources you find in space. And the farther you have to ship it, the more compelling it becomes to instead just send it one-way from Earth.
  • At this point it should be clear that you very much do not want to send people to mine asteroids. We could imagine instead sending autonomous mining probes...
  • Except now you have lots of new and interesting different problems, chiefly that mining stuff is not at all a straightforwardly automated task, and you'd need really powerful software consuming a lot of power to coordinate surveying, mining, and payload delivery autonomously (on top of the already large and heretofore unmentioned energy expenditure just to mine in the first place, and the payload delivery expenses). You'd very likely need fabrication facilities for the entire suite of things needed, including unimagined novel requirements discovered on-site, meaning solar panels, semiconductors and lithography equipment, forging and casting tools... All of which has virtually no heatsinking and an endless bath of radiation to contend with during manufacturing.
  • But suppose you actually got that insanely complex symphony of automation humming along. Great job, you can now... build more space robots, I guess. Whoopie. I suppose you could start working on even more stupid science fiction vanity projects like Dyson spheres or Matrioshka brains or whatever. If this was your plan all along, I am interested to learn how you managed to trick someone into funding the entire world's GDP a dozen times over into the first thousand steps of this plan.

I don't doubt that SpaceX will happily take the money of anyone foolish enough to ignore all of the above at their own expense and perform their services as advertised. But their business model does not depend on people with more money than common sense - their big moneymaker is, as others have noted, building a novel telecommunications network with broadband-like performance and selling it to the US government, using novel reusable rocket components that cost orders of magnitude less than the previous state-of-the-art and that can be launched quickly and regularly. I expect their next steps for profitability all revolve around expanding the use of this network to things like surveillance satellites, content providers, etc. I grant that they have some appetite for ridiculous vanity projects like the mars launch stuff, but this is ultimately a manageable marketing expense. But for anyone with some rudimentary literacy in the subject, it should be clear that space mining is not a sustainable business, and as a marketing stunt it is extremely boring (heh).

"Getting places in space is convoluted to begin with, and all trips beyond Earth orbit require carefully calculated momentum assists from various heavenly bodies. The error on these calculations is pretty large relative to the size of most asteroids. It's infeasible to pre-plan a route so specific and so accurate that one could send a spacecraft to a specific asteroid in the asteroid belt once, let alone reliably at different times. The energy and time cost for any such trip would be enormous as well."

I'm already lost on your first point. NASA has already done this. For both asteroid belt asteroids and near earth asteroids. If you don't swap your inches and centimeters then yes you can go to a specific asteroid. It is not too complex, we understand orbital mechanics.

There is no reason to mine in space while everything we need is much cheaper to obtain on earth. It’s unnecessary science fiction to build “industrial tech” settings that include asteroid mines and lunar helium farming or whatever.

There is no need to mine the new world when everything is much cheaper to obtain in Europe. Some have argued that most colonies actually did cost their home countries much more than they brought in, but one can't argue with the results. THE USA!

The new world actually did offer resources not available, or available only in very short supply, in Europe.

Same could be said for space. You can't find 6 trillion dollars worth of platinum laying around here anywhere!

And if there’s ever a demand for $6 trillion worth of platinum the same way as for sugar and tobacco, you’ll have a point.

You don't know what you can use it for till you get that much! Heck tobacco wasn't even a thing before they brought it back! Certainly don't need sugar or tobacco, people just like them, pure luxury goods. Platinum has actual uses. From pure utils, tobacco and sugar have been huge negatives for human health and society including the horrible conditions on sugar plantations.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats