Yes, Mars is an interesting place for people interested in the relevant areas of science, such as geology, but is otherwise pretty much useless. At least in theory asteroid mining could provide useful elements at a bearable price, but Mars never will. Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids.
Well, Mars is significantly smaller than Earth and has an atmosphere orders of magnitude thinner. Once we have significant spaceborne infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities, I’m sure we will find uses for Mars, even if that just means strip mining it and launching the materials off a magnetic cannon at the top of Olympus Mons.
The at osphere at the top of the Martian mountain is incredibly thin, even compared to Mars’ already thin atmosphere. Combined with Mars’ low gravity, tossing things into orbit should be more than doable.
But that’s certainly not something for Elon Musk to build on Earth and send to Mars. It’s a project we could tackle once we are well established in space itself (which is the real prize, not a dead planet…)
We also have vaccines, and enough potatoes for everyone in Ireland. You win some, you lose some.
Tell me what each step costs, vs. how much profit each step returns, and I’ll tell you where it breaks down.
Your satire is too dry by half.
You are not going to beat @Lumpy with logic; his armor against reason is as impenetrable as Gojira’s scales.
Stranger
Sure. But the question always is, who gets to decide what’s lost and who loses it. Record profits for billionaires or a planet with a stable climate? Decisions, decisions.
I’m talking about a very long time from now, obviously. But I’m not being satirical.
I was.
Stranger
Do you seriously believe that the Industrial Revolution created inequality? Even today we still haven’t reached the relative level of inequality between an 18th century European duke and the tenant farmers he extracted rents from.
Sure, we live in a more egalitarian society than under a feudalist system, that’s true. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t very far from where we could be, and more so, from where we should be if we want to have any hope for averting the worst of the humanitarian crises climate change will visit upon us. Because it’s the richest among us that are responsible for the bulk of the damage to come, and the poorest among us that will suffer disproportionately as a result.
Anyway, this is straying rather far from the topic of the thread, so I’ll leave it at that.
Moderating:
This is not the pit. Don’t attack other posters.
The disparity between a Musk or a Bezos and their lowest-paid employee is orders of magnitude greater than that between a duke and their tenants.
I’m going to need cites to support that.
The Duke of Grafton had an annual income of approximately £6,000 to £10,600 during the late 18th century. Cite
“the average annual income for an English laborer or farmer in 1800 was around 15-20 pounds.” Cite. Doubt there was a sudden jump from the late 1700s to 1800, so let’s run with that.
Difference: ~500x
Bezos’s wealth, as of 2024, is around $230 billion. Cite.
His annual wealth growth is in the range of $16 billion/year for the last decade. Cite
His lowest-paid employees, such as Amazon warehouse workers, might earn approximately $40,000 per year (Cite) Maybe janitors earn less, I don’t know for sure.
That’s 400,000x income difference (and way more difference in overall net worth)
I’d say 400 000 is several orders of magnitude more than 500, yes.
Why are you comparing a lowly Duke to one of the richest men on the planet? Shouldn’t you be comparing them to monarchs or emperors?
You just mixed apples and oranges, talking about income versus wealth. A tenant farmer owned next to nothing but his tools and his household implements; an upper nobility estate owner owned square miles of productive agricultural land, vastly valuable.
Because Lumpy used Duke. And “lowly”? Non-royal dukedoms are the highest rank of peerage below the monarch, with only 40 such titles during George I’s reign. And ditto for their worth.
Do you really think Kings were 1000 times richer than Dukes? 100 times, sure. but not 1000.
Only on one side of the time gap. It’s only going to introduce an order of magnitude difference - estates or parts thereof sold for tens of thousands of pounds, not millions. Cite. Not vastly more than their income. The value of estate land was in the income it brings in.
And there are only 2 people in the world richer than Jeffrey (officially - maybe Putin makes 3), so comparing him to one of 40 seems quite unfair.
Bezos is comparable to the Qing Emperor or the King of France, not to anyone’s vassal.
And wealth only captures part of the equation. Bezos doesn’t have any influence over his workers outside of paying them; kings and even dukes had powers of life and death over their subjects.
I followed a car to work the other day, (a Tesla 3) It had a bumper sticker that read:…“I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy” .
AS previous pposters said,…Guys like Ford, Edison, Lindbergh were brilliant at one thing but in NUMEROUS other fields and areas were crazy as an outhouse rat
Pick any other deca-billionaire (there are 150-200 of them), the point stands. Still orders of magnitude.
Your goalposts seem to be moving - better catch them. I’m certainly not going after them.
Outside of their entire livelihood, he has no influence. Well, good to know he has minimal impact, then /s
No, the courts did. 18th C dukes did not have “the power of life and death” over the farmers that rented from them (other than the same ability as Bezos to remove their livelihood). That’s absurd. This is Georgian England - the time of Jane Austen, not whatever barbarity you’re imagining.