Re:Chevron Calls End to New Liquified Natural Gas Mega Projects
by dredmorbius on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @07:13PM
(#13935950)
SpaceX is interesting and hugely impressive -- I'd thought the prospects of flying a stage back under rocket power were nil and am openly eating my hat given Musk's accomplishments here.
That said, I'll maintain that outer space is, net net, a sink, not a source, and that there is no Earth2 within reach. At best we've a handful of solid bodies, most of which are moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and possibly some interesting mineral resources.
The fundamental problem we've got to tackle is one of understanding the concept of, assessing the magnituded of, and living within, limits. I don't see much sign of that having happened.
As for the economics, there are a number of places at which I depart sharply with orthodoxy, and I'm trying to assess just what those are. There are a few economists from whom I find some agreement and inspiration, though that's only a few, and going through and assessing theory is time consuming.
Well put. This is why I get excited about SpaceX news. It, and other commercial space ventures, seem like the very beginnings of a formation of a plan to shuttle people to the other lifeboats we see around us. It doesn't actually solve the problem, but often it's easier to make better decisions the second time around...
> I'm quite aware that this is not orthodox economic thinking.
I wouldn't say it's entirely unorthodox economic thinking, just unorthodox practice. I would hazard most economists understand this, and likely agree to a greater or lesser degree, but sit somewhere around "believe it will self correct", "don't know how to change it" and "don't think it's a problem" on what to do about it depending on ideology.