There are exactly zero minerals available inside planets that are unavailable on asteroids.
Sci-fi will be sci-fi but can we go back to the time it was at least well thought? Can’t hurt. If the objective of the movie was to make social criticism, it didn’t need to go to such lenghts.
And it was a boring movie; failed to captivate me.
That depends. Although massive deforestation throughout the planet, tree farms are a thing. So…
But haul wood over who knows what expanses of space? It would be cheaper to build greenhouses on barren planets and moons. The biggest challenge would probably be to prevent the oxygen in those enclosed habitats to eat away the building materials.
I remember following the advances on an experiment, during the 90’s, where a team of scientists designed and built a fully self contained habitat, with only plants inside. I think the objective was to measure if the plants could/would survive in very limited resources conditions.
Well, the plants survived. After an initial shock, the plants self regulated and the habitat stabilized into a fully enclosed ecosystem.
Things became weird when the oxygen levels rose to a point where the ciment of the walls started to come apart. They had to hastily coat the walls with very thick rubber paint to prevent more damage.
You know the point I’m making though: there are indeed precious resources that can’t be mined from asteroids. It is not inconceivable that there are organic compounds out there with unique properties that can’t simply be made in a lab (e.g. ancient wood properties compared to new forest) and exist in a state that is economical for easy extraction.
You’re intelligent. Or at least, well read/educated.
I didn’t say it was a good plot-device. The entire movie was hamfisted from the world building through the dialog, the character development, and those hamfists evolved into bulldozers to bring the moral home.
The only thing it had going for it was the CGI… which was obsequious.
Regardless, it’s their fictional world. They designed it to be stupid and boring so they could make some sort of moral superiority bullshit statement about capitalism while grossing 2+ billion.
Also, I’m just gonna say it. It wasn’t even sci fi. sure, sure. it had ships and stuff. but that’s not what makes sci fi sci fi.
Usually, at this point, I would say even a broken clock is right twice a day, but I’m trying to get accostumed to receive a compliment, so I’ll instead say thank you for those kind words. And that we agree.
There are exactly zero minerals available inside planets that are unavailable on asteroids.
Sci-fi will be sci-fi but can we go back to the time it was at least well thought? Can’t hurt. If the objective of the movie was to make social criticism, it didn’t need to go to such lenghts.
And it was a boring movie; failed to captivate me.
isn’t wood a hard to find resource?
That depends. Although massive deforestation throughout the planet, tree farms are a thing. So…
But haul wood over who knows what expanses of space? It would be cheaper to build greenhouses on barren planets and moons. The biggest challenge would probably be to prevent the oxygen in those enclosed habitats to eat away the building materials.
I remember following the advances on an experiment, during the 90’s, where a team of scientists designed and built a fully self contained habitat, with only plants inside. I think the objective was to measure if the plants could/would survive in very limited resources conditions. Well, the plants survived. After an initial shock, the plants self regulated and the habitat stabilized into a fully enclosed ecosystem. Things became weird when the oxygen levels rose to a point where the ciment of the walls started to come apart. They had to hastily coat the walls with very thick rubber paint to prevent more damage.
You know the point I’m making though: there are indeed precious resources that can’t be mined from asteroids. It is not inconceivable that there are organic compounds out there with unique properties that can’t simply be made in a lab (e.g. ancient wood properties compared to new forest) and exist in a state that is economical for easy extraction.
It’s not inconceivable but I will insist on the point that technology is the right tool to solve such issues.
It was inconceivable a few decades ago - even a couple of years ago! - several medical advances that are today used routinely.
It is a fun theoretical discussion to entertain but we would reach no real conclusion.
You’re intelligent. Or at least, well read/educated.
I didn’t say it was a good plot-device. The entire movie was hamfisted from the world building through the dialog, the character development, and those hamfists evolved into bulldozers to bring the moral home.
The only thing it had going for it was the CGI… which was obsequious.
Regardless, it’s their fictional world. They designed it to be stupid and boring so they could make some sort of moral superiority bullshit statement about capitalism while grossing 2+ billion.
Also, I’m just gonna say it. It wasn’t even sci fi. sure, sure. it had ships and stuff. but that’s not what makes sci fi sci fi.
Aliens, Mech suits and remotely controlled vat-grown body doubles aren’t enough to make it sci Fi?
Usually, at this point, I would say even a broken clock is right twice a day, but I’m trying to get accostumed to receive a compliment, so I’ll instead say thank you for those kind words. And that we agree.