Mass_Driver comments on Help Build a Landing Page for Existential Risk? - Less Wrong

12 Post author: Mass_Driver 30 July 2015 06:03AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (32)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 07 August 2015 06:34:08PM 0 points [-]

Great! Pick one and get started, please. If you can't decide which one to do, please do asteroids.

Comment author: EngineerofScience 08 August 2015 12:15:51PM 2 points [-]

I will do asteroids.

Comment author: EngineerofScience 08 August 2015 01:30:21PM 0 points [-]

Also, can I write in my asteroid essay the potential helpfullness of asteroids? We belive that one asteroid(just one!) could be worth $1,000,000,000,000. In other words, catching one asteroid could be worth one-trillion dollars. Could I mention that in my hundred word blurb?

Comment author: Vaniver 08 August 2015 05:55:52PM 3 points [-]

We belive that one asteroid(just one!) could be worth $1,000,000,000,000.

At... current market prices, or market prices once the asteroid is successfully caught and mining begins?

Comment author: EngineerofScience 10 August 2015 07:24:25PM 1 point [-]

I don't know the exact numbers, nor how carefully that was found out. The point is that asteroids contain mor metals than we ever mined ever and that adds up to be a lot of money.

Comment author: CCC 11 August 2015 08:24:27AM 1 point [-]

Well, if you consider that the asteroids would presumably be made of more-or-less the same stuff as the Earth, only spread out in small chunks instead of lumped into one great big ball that we can only get to a thin portion of the outer layer of (like Earth) it's easy to see that there's a great potential wealth of minerals and metals in there. (No oil or coal, though, as those require organics in order to form).

If you're going to be quoting exact figures, though, then you probably need to be aware of exactly where the figure comes from. Especially if the figure is particularly surprising.

Comment author: TimoRiikonen 17 August 2015 05:35:27AM *  0 points [-]

Actually the number in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining is even larger than that: $20,000,000,000,000 .

This amount seems so large that I would expect metal prices to decrease substantially, but even if they would do so, the potential value is huge when someone finds a commercially viable manner to extract and especially fetch the ore.

Comment author: CCC 17 August 2015 08:05:58AM 0 points [-]

Hmmm, looking at the citation brings me to this page...

According to John Lewis (a University of Arizona planetary scientist), for example, the smallest Earth-crossing asteroid 3554 Amun (see orbit) is a mile-wide (2,000-meter) lump of iron, nickel, cobalt, platinum, and other metals; it contains 30 times as much metal as Humans have mined throughout history, although it is only the smallest of dozens of known metallic asteroids and worth perhaps US$ 20 trillion if mined slowly to meet demand at 2001 market prices.

It seems that, as you point out, that value entirely fails to take into account the severe drop in price caused by the vast amount of metal suddenly on the market...

Comment author: EngineerofScience 20 August 2015 11:52:55PM *  -2 points [-]

If all of those asteroids are owned by one company, then they can sell the metal of the asteroids for as much as it was before because they would be the only people with that much metal, having something similar to a monopoly. They would have the choice of lowering the value of the metals, because if they only made $10/ton. of metal and they sold 1 million tons, then they make ten million dollars. However, if a different company with ten tons of metal making $10/ton. of metal would make one hundred dollars, perhaps not be able to pay their workers, and go out of business. That would reduce competition for the company that caught the asteroid. However, if the company sold them for the same prices long-term they could make trillions of dollars.

Comment author: CCC 21 August 2015 07:39:50AM 0 points [-]

Yeah, but in order to pull that off, they need to dribble the metal slowly enough into the market. Considering that they have significant up-front costs in getting the stuff, and furthermore considering that they have to deal with an economics phenomenon called the time value of money (basically, $100 now is worth more than $100 next year because if you have it now you can earn interest on it for a year), dribbling it into the market like that might just mean that they can never quite recover the value of their initial investment.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 August 2015 10:18:14PM 0 points [-]

Astroid defense seems mostly about better mapping abilities and not about mining asteroids.

Comment author: Vaniver 11 August 2015 02:27:12PM 2 points [-]

It seems to me that roughly similar capabilities are useful for mining asteroids and deflecting asteroids with known impact trajectories (i.e. step 2 in the Don't Die plan), and this puts this into the class of opportunities where succeeding gives you more than just not dying (like AGI).

Comment author: Wes_W 21 August 2015 12:55:27AM *  0 points [-]

On the other hand, asteroid mining technologies have some risks of their own, although this only reaches "existential" if somebody starts mining the big ones.

The largest nuclear weapon was the Tsar Bomba: 50 megatonnes of TNT, roughly equivalent to a 3.3-million-tonne impactor. Asteroids larger than this are thought to number in the tens of millions, and at the time of writing only 1.1 million had been provisionally identified. Asteroid shunting at or beyond this scale is by definition a trans-nuclear technology, which means a point comes where the necessary level of trust is unprecedented.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 09 August 2015 04:44:13PM 0 points [-]

Sure!