this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
641 points (97.6% liked)

Greentext

4348 readers
967 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Gold also isn't all that rare. It's value is so high because of jewelry marketing, not rarity.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You may be confusing with diamonds. Gold is, and in fact, any element heavier than iron are pretty rare because they cannot be created by stars alone according to current models, they need more extreme and rare astrophysics phenomenons like supernova and black holes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Yes I think that is the exact confusion I had.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Gold is rare, compared to just about every other element, in accessible areas of earth. All the gold ever discovered on Earth would fit inside a 23 meter (75 foot) cube. This is about 244 thousand tons, in all of human history.

Compare this to iron, where just the United States produces 46 Million tons in 2022 alone.

There is plenty of gold deep within the Earth - it is very dense, so it sank towards the core when Earth was recently formed - but on the surface and the proximal crust, it is not found in abundance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

That is a mind blowing fact about all gold fitting in 23 cubic meters. I had to fact check it because it sounds so absurd: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21969100

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Is that 23mx23mx23m or 23 cubic meters?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

The first one, 23x23x23

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Those...Are the same thing?

Edit: I thought they meant 23x23x23 as in dimensions not multiples

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

23x23x23 is 12167 cubic meters.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Okay I see where I fucked that up