"Strip mine the asteroid belt?"
Feb. 14th, 2003 08:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusSo some guy was on TV the other day, talking about the columbia disaster. Which inevitably leads to the question of why bother with space. One of the people brought up the fact that the asteroid belt might have enough resources, including Uranium, to be worth going there and getting.
So one of the other guys on the program asked, "so, what, after we despoil our own planet, we go and strip mine the asteroid belt?" The first guy mentioned something about careful mining techniques that wouldn't upset the ecosystem or some such nonsense.
Which was wrong, of course.
The correct answer is "YES! For fuck's sake, strip mine the damn asteroid belt!" We don't do strip mining down here (as much, anymore) because it damages the ecosystem, and is ugly to boot. The asteroid belt wouldn't have those problems. There is no ecosystem on a lifeless chunk of rock! Pollution isn't an issue. If you belch too much smog into space, the most that'll happen is that it'll eventually coalesce into a new planet. Nuclear fuel is perfectly safe, because nothing we make is going to measurably change the background radiation that's already there, even if we're ejecting spent fuel rods as we go.
So, no, we don't go there and damage it all after we finish fucking up here. We go there and get whatever resources we need so we don't have to fuck up our own world.
A lot of causes, like protection of the environment, have to be fought through political processes. But it sometimes seems that people forget the reasons for the fight, and just concentrate on the fight itself. There are good reasons to not use nuclear power here. But people forget the reasons. It turns from "nuclear power is bad because it produces radioactive waste that lasts for thousands of years and we have no way to store it without killing people" to "nuclear power is bad", and you get people protesting against things like Cassini, which sent a nuclear reactor out to orbit Jupiter.
There are good reasons for protecting the environment. There are real problems caused by various technology (oh, and don't get me started on biotech!), but the answer is to solve the problems, not avoid the technology.
Yes. Strip mine the asteroid belt. In fact, let's move all pollution-causing industry into space. Just bring back the finished product. An occasional nuclear explosion at the L-1 point won't hurt anything. Use nuclear reactors and solar energy collectors to power robots who strip-mine the asteroid belt, and produce nice, clean, safe energy sources like hydrogen, for use down here. If a few asteroids have to give up their existence for earth, I'm all for it.
So one of the other guys on the program asked, "so, what, after we despoil our own planet, we go and strip mine the asteroid belt?" The first guy mentioned something about careful mining techniques that wouldn't upset the ecosystem or some such nonsense.
Which was wrong, of course.
The correct answer is "YES! For fuck's sake, strip mine the damn asteroid belt!" We don't do strip mining down here (as much, anymore) because it damages the ecosystem, and is ugly to boot. The asteroid belt wouldn't have those problems. There is no ecosystem on a lifeless chunk of rock! Pollution isn't an issue. If you belch too much smog into space, the most that'll happen is that it'll eventually coalesce into a new planet. Nuclear fuel is perfectly safe, because nothing we make is going to measurably change the background radiation that's already there, even if we're ejecting spent fuel rods as we go.
So, no, we don't go there and damage it all after we finish fucking up here. We go there and get whatever resources we need so we don't have to fuck up our own world.
A lot of causes, like protection of the environment, have to be fought through political processes. But it sometimes seems that people forget the reasons for the fight, and just concentrate on the fight itself. There are good reasons to not use nuclear power here. But people forget the reasons. It turns from "nuclear power is bad because it produces radioactive waste that lasts for thousands of years and we have no way to store it without killing people" to "nuclear power is bad", and you get people protesting against things like Cassini, which sent a nuclear reactor out to orbit Jupiter.
There are good reasons for protecting the environment. There are real problems caused by various technology (oh, and don't get me started on biotech!), but the answer is to solve the problems, not avoid the technology.
Yes. Strip mine the asteroid belt. In fact, let's move all pollution-causing industry into space. Just bring back the finished product. An occasional nuclear explosion at the L-1 point won't hurt anything. Use nuclear reactors and solar energy collectors to power robots who strip-mine the asteroid belt, and produce nice, clean, safe energy sources like hydrogen, for use down here. If a few asteroids have to give up their existence for earth, I'm all for it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
This is certainly...
Date: 2003-02-14 11:30 am (UTC)... one of the best arguments I have read for it. I completely agree. let's do it because we can, and not because we have no other choice after depleating what little remains of the resources in our own planet.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-14 09:54 pm (UTC)Where will the waste from the mining/manufacture go? Can we control its disposition such that it will not interfere (e.g. say enough debris interposes between the planet & the sun, as a simplistic example)? Are you positive that a nuclear explosion at L-1 won't hurt anything?
Expansion to enable our current destructive behavior is not something I can condone.