[Spaceships] Million Merchant Marathon

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by itchking

In that scenario of massive reduction in the ability of Earthside farming production it is conceivable that exo-farms would be a way (massive upfront costs not withstanding) to avert massive famine. Assuming of course there is enough lead time to start spinning up new farming plexes.

Cheaper to just fix the farmland. Let's suppose you can build a square kilometer of farms in orbit for a mere $1 billion (which is super cheap). What do you think happens if you spend that same $1 billion on farmland restoration?

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Cheaper to just fix the farmland. Let's suppose you can build a square kilometer of farms in orbit for a mere $1 billion (which is super cheap). What do you think happens if you spend that same $1 billion on farmland restoration?

Oh I agree. I prefaced it with 'a scenario that might lead to'...I wouldn't run it that way...but if someone wanted to that would be the way I would recommend to do it.

Normally yes it would be cheaper to rehabilitate Earthside farmland. However if the damage were to be extensive enough there comes a point when no matter how much money you pour into the project it just will not work.

Triage does not do a lot for the dead.

In that scenario (esp with pre-existing orbital farms) further expanding orbitals to feed people Earthside might be a workable emergency measure.

YMMV etc.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I've heard before - but never found a confirmation of it - that plants actually grow and mature more rapidly in a zero-g environment, as they don't need to fight against gravity. If this is true, such plants may be able to generate appropriate produce more rapidly than those that are Earthside, potentially giving orbital farms an advantage over terrestrial ones.

Well I'm kind of partial to Standford Tori, and the interesting thing about them in this case is that you can cheat in this regard, you can make inner rings with lower gravity. Maybe even gene-engineer dwarf crops so that they grow even faster.

Originally Posted by Witchking

However the start up costs are enough that I assume 100% of orbital food production will be tied up in feeding people in orbit.

I doubt IF the build out gets to the point of 100% supplying orbital food demand there will then be a drive to build more expensive orbital farms to ship 'down'.

I assume that the marginal improvements in growth and shipping costs will be more than offset by the large difference in upfront costs.

YMMV of course.

Sorry, I thought you where suggesting growing food to feed people on earth, see my below.

Originally Posted by Anthony

The reason it's hard is because the option with long term problems is short term cheap. If you're willing to make your preferred option cheaper, they'll use your preferred option. This costs a lot of money... but nowhere near as much money as terraforming.

There's a couple of other reasons:

1. Africans see the American lifestyle in movies and on TV and want it, which means that devlopment occurs towards that, no matter what
2. Giving the advice is complicated, there's an aspect of 'Do as I say and not as I do' put also a parential or something componet to it that makes it hard.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Cheaper to just fix the farmland. Let's suppose you can build a square kilometer of farms in orbit for a mere $1 billion (which is super cheap). What do you think happens if you spend that same $1 billion on farmland restoration?

This is scene coming a few years out, but things probably start in one country and move domino like. And things probably fall to prices before people start starving but when governments start rationing or invading neighbors. And the West might not do anything to avoid creating perpetual starvation, and there's no way they could build enough farms in time.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by scc

There's a couple of other reasons:

1. Africans see the American lifestyle in movies and on TV and want it, which means that devlopment occurs towards that, no matter what
2. Giving the advice is complicated, there's an aspect of 'Do as I say and not as I do' put also a parential or something componet to it that makes it hard.

Why build dirty power plants when you can build solar satellites and groundside receiver stations for far cheaper? Why use old gas-burning vehicles when you can get top-of-the-line electric vehicles for a fraction of the price? Why pollute your environment from landfills and dumping into rivers when the West will pay you for your waste? Because that's the situation the African people (and their leaders) would find themselves in if the West invested a fraction of what they would need to spend for terraforming three worlds into preventing Africa from becoming a toxic wasteland (to be clear, the reason the solar satellites/receivers, electric vehicles, etc cost so little is because the West is footing most of the bill).

[FrackingBiscuit]

Originally Posted by scc

There's a couple of other reasons:

1. Africans see the American lifestyle in movies and on TV and want it, which means that devlopment occurs towards that, no matter what
2. Giving the advice is complicated, there's an aspect of 'Do as I say and not as I do' put also a parential or something componet to it that makes it hard.

"Africans just can't help themselves destroying Africa" is a really weird take for a supposedly anti-imperialist background. Also seems to reduce all of the West to just the USA, which... first of all seems odd, second of all seems to equate "the American Dream" with "increase pollution at all costs" and not much else.

The idea that all of Africa will always choose fossil fuels and pollution even if clean energy is cheaper is hard to believe. Setting aside that an entire continent having the same economic opinion is highly unlikely, it seems to me that the only people who would choose Pollution Uber Alles are the legacy fossil fuel companies that have a vested interest in it. Nobody else benefits.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by scc

There's a couple of other reasons:

1. Africans see the American lifestyle in movies and on TV and want it, which means that devlopment occurs towards that, no matter what
2. Giving the advice is complicated, there's an aspect of 'Do as I say and not as I do' put also a parential or something componet to it that makes it hard.

There is nothing especially appealing about the American lifestyle that demands mass environmental degradation. I'm also not talking about providing advice, I'm talking about providing direct economic incentives.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If the terraforming plan cost ten times as much as cleaning up the Earth, I could see it happening.

I get the impression that isn't really the choice being posed. A bunch of "terraforming nations" get together to terraform the moon and two planets to "create jobs". In the meantime, environmental degradation destroys Africa, which the "terraforming nations" don't care about, because they're stupid and short-sighted. Then there's enormous refugee crisis that causes mass chaos (I feel icky writing that).

The situation isn't: "The environment's being destroyed, we can clean up the Earth or Terraform Mars", it's, "We should have spent more money on foreign aid."

Then again, any organization that can afford to terraform multiple worlds at once probably has so much wealth that they could divert a tiny fraction of their budget towards foreign aid and avoid the problem to begin with.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Then again, any organization that can afford to terraform multiple worlds at once probably has so much wealth that they could divert a tiny fraction of their budget towards foreign aid and avoid the problem to begin with.

This. If you can solve the problem by diverting 0.0001% of the budget, it's pretty hard to see that not happening.

[FrackingBiscuit]

Originally Posted by TGLS

In the meantime, environmental degradation destroys Africa, which the "terraforming nations" don't care about, because they're stupid and short-sighted.

Not just that - it's apparently Africa itself that's destroying Africa, and doesn't care because they're stupid and short-sighted, according to this setting. The terraforming nations apparently have the means to fix the problem but don't want to for fear of being accused of imperialism.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Why build dirty power plants when you can build solar satellites and groundside receiver stations for far cheaper? Why use old gas-burning vehicles when you can get top-of-the-line electric vehicles for a fraction of the price? Why pollute your environment from landfills and dumping into rivers when the West will pay you for your waste? Because that's the situation the African people (and their leaders) would find themselves in if the West invested a fraction of what they would need to spend for terraforming three worlds into preventing Africa from becoming a toxic wasteland (to be clear, the reason the solar satellites/receivers, electric vehicles, etc cost so little is because the West is footing most of the bill).

Groundside receiver stations would be the default, although issues such as size minimum (requiring national grids to make proper use of them) and restrictions on placement and construction (The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was ended by one such incident) may well restrict their use in Africa.

But the main source of pollution is more ground water contamination and the like, PFAS being dumped into the river, burning of fossil fuels for power is not an issue.

As for the West paying them not to do stuff like this, I'm not sure how likely that is, but I doubt that if offered it would be accepted.

Originally Posted by FrackingBiscuit

"Africans just can't help themselves destroying Africa" is a really weird take for a supposedly anti-imperialist background. Also seems to reduce all of the West to just the USA, which... first of all seems odd, second of all seems to equate "the American Dream" with "increase pollution at all costs" and not much else.

The idea that all of Africa will always choose fossil fuels and pollution even if clean energy is cheaper is hard to believe. Setting aside that an entire continent having the same economic opinion is highly unlikely, it seems to me that the only people who would choose Pollution Uber Alles are the legacy fossil fuel companies that have a vested interest in it. Nobody else benefits.

I don't think anti-imperialist really applies here, and likely neither does post-imperialist. Also see above, this doesn't really have anything to do with fosil fuels.

Originally Posted by Anthony

There is nothing especially appealing about the American lifestyle that demands mass environmental degradation. I'm also not talking about providing advice, I'm talking about providing direct economic incentives.

Providing it cheaply and quickly however almost certainly does. And Westerners telling Africans not to go that route will almost certainly provoke them to go that route.

Originally Posted by FrackingBiscuit

Not just that - it's apparently Africa itself that's destroying Africa, and doesn't care because they're stupid and short-sighted, according to this setting. The terraforming nations apparently have the means to fix the problem but don't want to for fear of being accused of imperialism.

This, the terraforming nations trying to force the issue will not end well.

For reference I'm basing this off the on-going civil war in Ethiopia. In contrast to the Russian invasion of Ukraine Europe isn't providing weapons to any side. Why? Well the no side is good (compared to Ukraine V. Russia) is one. The other is the complicated history between the continents. This same history prevents them from sending peacekeepers.