Thread: Yeah! Asteroids, baby! :)

Originally Posted by capecoddah

OK.
It is a reference to It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown a 1966 American prime time animated television special based on the comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz.

Charlie Brown had great hopes and ambition for Halloween candy (space mining) and all he gets are rocks.
The "World Space Agency" could spend Billions of Earth Resources and fly to a rock and have nothing of value.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I agree, theoretically they could have nothing of value or have less value that they have invested into it. The only thing with 'value' is that thing tend to change over time depending on the infrastructure. Needless to explain that the value of a piece of meat is much less these days than it used to be just a hundred years ago. At the same time, say, a piece of uranium was of very little value 100 years ago and is now of very high value as it could be used (after being enriched) as a nuclear fuel. So, I think what is important here is a vision: should we fight here on Earth for the remnants of the depleting resources, or start investing into the future?

Originally Posted by capecoddah

There is Helium3 on the Moon. Not being mined.

You see, I'm not a professional applied physicist to say with authority it will never be mined or it will be mined in 10 years. I've heard He-3 might be a good thermonuclear fuel. So, at some point in time as technology develop it might be more economically viable to start mining it on the Moon and bring it back. Let's see the outcome of the ITER project. But, in my opinion, that direction is much more promising than all the so-called 'renewable sources' exploitation, which is clearly only a temporary solution to the energy demands. For example, according to http://environmentaldefence.ca/sites...port_FINAL.pdf

The International Energy Agency estimates that the total amount of global investment in clean energy production will reach US$1.55 trillion by 2020 even in the absence of international action to tackle global warming, and, with action, the investment rises to US$2.2 trillion.

Now, according to ITER - the way to new energy , "Based on the European evaluation, we can estimate the cost of ITER construction for the seven Members at approximately EUR 13 billion, if all the manufacturing was done in Europe."

Hmm.. EUR 13 billion versus US$2.2 trillion.. Shouldn't that be the other way around?

Originally Posted by capecoddah

People tend to cling to their own culture as long as possible before assimilating.

I agree with that. So, here's the alternatives:

1. If the business of country X needs to deal with the business of country Y, let's make Xs learn Y's language and Ys learn X's language.

2. If the business of country Z needs to deal with the business of any other country, let the other countries learn Z's language, and Zs will not learn any other language.

3. Adopt one 'international-culture language' and let all countries deal in that among themselves while keeping their own languages internally.

In fact, there are lots of international standards already in all kinds of industries, so why not in the language? Using English as international language gives an unfair advantage to the native English speakers and English culture in general. What's so special in English culture to let its language dominate?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I agree with that. So, here's the alternatives:

1. If the business of country X needs to deal with the business of country Y, let's make Xs learn Y's language and Ys learn X's language.

Very strange proposition.
So if you want to buy M from K store, should you pay money to the K store and the store would pay you money back for the same M?
In other words if X wants to do business with Y - they should spent resources on making that happen, not the other way around

Originally Posted by Doomer

Very strange proposition.
So if you want to buy M from K store, should you pay money to the K store and the store would pay you money back for the same M?
In other words if X wants to do business with Y - they should spent resources on making that happen, not the other way around

For example, if some of the French oil explorers want to hire a couple of Kaluli guides to lurk in Papua New Guinea forest, that means French geologists would either have Kaluli learn to speak French or themselves learn to speak one of the Bosavi dialects. And if Kaluli want to sell their crafted wooden figures of birds in France, the same question could be asked again - who would learn whose language. Needless to say, if the commercial ties are strong, both French and Kaluli would learn each other language. So, I think, option 1 is not strange, actually the most natural, but definitely not the most effective for Kaluli if they ever decide to also sell their handicraft in England, Spain, Portugal, Russia, South Arabia, and so on.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

What's so special in English culture to let its language dominate?

American linguistic/cultural imperialism is simply our revenge on the goddamned treacherous French for forcing their godless metric system and oral sex on the entire world!!!

Deepest apologies to Russians, Chinese, Mexicans, and others who have no choice but to learn the complicated and illogical English language instead of simple, rational Esperanto. You were only innocent "collateral damage" from our noble campaign against the stinking heathen Frogs...