i mean it would take a total restructuring of the economy for asteroid mining to be even twice the cost of terrestrial mining. i'll be honest i think nine tenths of anything labelled "futurism" is just bullshitting and hoping one of your predictions works out.
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
110 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13859 readers
631 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
sorry i can't get over this on a site that otherwise mostly values critical reasoning and some semblance of materialism will read a post saying that asteroid mining could "maybe" be profitable in "20 years" and no one asks them how exactly they arrived at that estimate or what that's based on. is China the magic word? are we doing Abundance Communism?
asteroid mining could "maybe" be profitable in "20 years"
It's a very 
claim lol
The site skews younger, and 20 years feels like a very long time when you're 25.
some rich guy who's an anti-goldfinger space mining a shitton of gold to crash the gold market because he shorted it somehow is more likely than a legit venture.
This may be the last bastion on the Internet for persnickety people calling BS on the casually hyper optimistic idealism that is just rampant these days.
Oh for sure. I shared this more because of the plunge in diamond prices. Marx stays winning, yet again.
We shit on capitalism a lot but we rarely acknowledge the true greats of the game.
I can’t think of a more evil corp than De Beers aside from Bayer pharma and maaaaaybe Monsanto and Nestle.
This a momentous occasion for gravedancers
Bayer owns Monsanto, or at least its old assets. Monsanto as a company doesn't exist anymore.
Incredible. Bayer really looked at Monsanto and said ‘that’s a culture fit’ out loud
For as much smoke Marx had for Capitalism, he also was awed by it. In the manifesto, he wrote:
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
Capitalism, undoubtedly, is a system of production that no other previous mode of production could even imagine. No other previous social relation could have produced this amount of abundance and technological progress. It is the unevenness of the capitalist system, and its fundamental laws, which bar the vast majority of people from ever benefiting from the productive forces of Capitalism.
This is just another example of the "[constant] revolutionising the instruments of production". The De Beers are becoming a relic, attempting to hold on to old modes of production. Their practice will, inevitably, be regulated to the dust bin of history.
I don't think it has anything to do with capitalism frankly. It's technology. The soviets grew faster than most capitalist countries, monarchies that still exist compete quite well with capitalist nations. Think the Saudis. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of capital. The organizational structure behind the econonomy. The thing that really did all this amazing stuff was the technology itself. As we get more advanced our ability to advance increases. Exponential progress. That could happen under any system. It is more true imo that the abundance and technological progress that occured in the last few centuries created the conditions for capitalism to exist. Rather than capitalism creating the conditions for that progress.
It is more true imo that the abundance and technological progress that occured in the last few centuries created the conditions for capitalism to exist. Rather than capitalism creating the conditions for that progress.
Well said, tovarshi
It's a feedback loop, actually.
It's a feedback loop, actually.
Heh. You're not wrong on that part. I suppose that's the dialectical part of it.
The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa,
The means — unconditional development of the productive forces of society — comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital. The capitalist mode of production is, for this reason, a historical means of developing the material forces of production and creating an appropriate world-market and is, at the same time, a continual conflict between this its historical task and its own corresponding relations of social production.
Corps actually compete for most evil Corp title. What you have described ain't even the surface
EETC is like: hold my gin
We're going to be making gold by blasting tungsten with alpha particles before we'll ever get asteroid mining. And before doing radiation stuff corporations will be ripping the gold out of people's teeth. We've got a few dozen crises to go before capitalism would ever do something cool like space mining.
Would that be viable energy wise?
Absolutely not, but nuclear transmutation is at least a thing that already exists unlike asteroid mining. One of the problems is that gold has exactly one stable isotope, Au-197. So there are a lot of means to induce nuclear fusion to make other elements into gold, but I think only one method so far (the large hadron collider) has made stable isotopes.
Maybe China can do something cool once they finish building their 100km electron/positron collider.
Me when the von Neumann refiners get the destination coordinates wrong and my house gets vaporized by a 50 kilo slug of pure gold: 
Me after checking the price of the gold:
I honestly think we'll be melting the crown jewels for circuitry before asteroid mining will be economically viable
Electronics and science are the only real material uses for gold, everything else is vanity or an investment
The price of getting anything to the orbit won't be able to compete with the amount of gold in people's attics let alone the current mining production unless the demand for it explodes
Also just reusing what we have. It's not like the new electronics use an insanely higher amount of gold than the older ones. We can just use chemical processes to extract the gold from old circuit boards, and refine it again to be reused in new ones. We don't need to go get more from asteroids at all. Not unless the population explodes or something. We all already have a phone. Theres more old laptops sitting around not being used in most countries than there are people who need a new laptop. Theres no reason we can't just reuse those same raw materials again for the new stuff.
I think we will see old landfills and wate disposal sites being literally mined for the old circuit boards we threw away over the past 50 years eventually. Theres so much useful stuff raw materials wise in old trash heaps. We just have to find better ways to process it. Which while not free to do is much cheaper than space mining lol.
I think we will see old landfills and wate disposal sites being literally mined for the old circuit boards we threw away over the past 50 years eventually. Theres so much useful stuff raw materials wise in old trash heaps. We just have to find better ways to process it. Which while not free to do is much cheaper than space mining lol.
exactly, its the same argument as with terraforming Mars
if we could make Mars habitable, we also could reverse climate change on Earth literally millions of years
Diamonds are rare on the surface of the earth, and their discovery therefore costs on the average much labour-time. Consequently, they represent much labour in a small volume of space. Jacob doubts that gold has ever paid its complete value. This holds true even more for diamonds. According to Eschwege, by 1823 the complete yield of the eight-year old Brazilian diamond-diggings had not yet amounted to the value of the 1½ year average product of the Brazilian sugar or coffee plantations. Given more richly laden diggings the same quantum of labour would be represented by more diamonds and their value would sink. If one succeeds in converting coal into diamonds with little labour, then the value of diamonds would sink beneath that of paving stones.
hmm sounds like someone has a theory of where value comes from
This reminds me of how someone I used to know once literally pointed at diamonds to "disprove" the labor of value and is like "Marx never considered diamonds" and I'm just like 
at that exact paragraph.
The naked rapacious greed of the diamond industry was an important thing to encounter on my journey to anti-capitalism
While various adults had various answers to most of my questions when it came to the diamond industry it was all shrugs.
de boers btfo
China doesn't need an asteroid. They recently learned of the existence a goldmine of gold in Hunan province
while it is a very large deposit, at current consumption rates it won't last all that long
I dream of the day where we can use gold for its anti corrosion capabilities in industries
gold plated everything not because we're being fancy but because shit is as cheap as aluminium
My diamond collection doesn’t make sense anymore
How?
how do we know the space miners will a) get gold from space and b) not do the thing de boers did.. and realistically how much material can we get from space anytime soon anyway