61–70 of 131 posts
Humans belong to one of the most, if not THE most, destructive species on Earth. We exploit all resources we can lay our hands on and destroy plants and animals in the wake of our immense and selfish greed. We would serve the Universe best if we stayed here on Earth, and possibly even obliterated ourselves.
This reminds me of Astro Teller's recent article: http://qz.com/536483/why-its-compeltely-ridiculous-to-think-... """...we live on a planet that is perfect for us, and we seem to be unable to prevent ourselves from making it less and less habitable. We’re like a bunch of teenagers destroying our parents’ mansion in one long, crazy party, figuring that our backup plan is to run into the forest and build our own house.…
I think Teller really ought to blame the system and leaders who can actually change environmental policies rather than, you know, our whole species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the idea BUT… If we can't terraform Earth's deserts, do we really stand a chance with Mars? I might be mistaken in my analysis. Still, the only way a colony might survive seems to be by sending tremendous amounts of resources to Mars yearly. They can never hope to be self-sustaining until either astronomically large amounts of time or astronomically large amounts of energy are spent.
> If we can't terraform Earth's deserts, do we really stand a chance with Mars? It's not that we couldn't, it's that we don't care to - partly because the reward isn't there, and partly because there are opposing interests. Humans absolutely have had (and are having) large-scale impact on the Earth's climate, and that's while mostly trying not to.
Building a house takes months, but in a day, it can be burnt. Fighting entropy 101.
Look, I know that pie-in-the-sky science futurism is kind of our thing here at HN, but could we at least feign a little pragmatism every time Elon Musk pitches his plan to move us all to Mars?
This reminds me of Astro Teller's recent article: http://qz.com/536483/why-its-compeltely-ridiculous-to-think-... """...we live on a planet that is perfect for us, and we seem to be unable to prevent ourselves from making it less and less habitable. We’re like a bunch of teenagers destroying our parents’ mansion in one long, crazy party, figuring that our backup plan is to run into the forest and build our own house.…
I think Teller really ought to blame the system and leaders who can actually change environmental policies rather than, you know, our whole species.
Humans have been wrecking havoc various environments ever since Neolithic. Although there's no definitive proof, there are strong suggestions that they were at least contributing to the disappearance of the Mega-fauna, for instance.
Examples of small human settlements in small islands are very characteristic, IMHO. Everywhere it happened, endemic birds where usually eradicated very quickly.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_birds
This reminds me of Astro Teller's recent article: http://qz.com/536483/why-its-compeltely-ridiculous-to-think-... """...we live on a planet that is perfect for us, and we seem to be unable to prevent ourselves from making it less and less habitable. We’re like a bunch of teenagers destroying our parents’ mansion in one long, crazy party, figuring that our backup plan is to run into the forest and build our own house.…
I think Teller really ought to blame the system and leaders who can actually change environmental policies rather than, you know, our whole species.
The root problem of all is that we discount too much the future, so we don't value enough the long-term effects of anything (votes, policies, environment, etc.). This is something instinctive and natural to us as humans, and it takes us a lot of mental effort to be rational to the e.g. LessWrong et al. ideals, to the point that we can't be indefinitely rational, just for brief moments of attention. Our irrationalities govern us.
This is indeed a fault of the whole species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really not sure I want companies to have the capability to re-format entire planets. That sounds like entirely too much power for any organisation to have, if only given its potential for weaponisation. And land sale? The Outer Space Treaty [1] prohibits governments from claiming ownership of planets, so where would the authority to sell land on Mars come from? Do we really want companies to own planets? Weyland-…
Any country bound by that treaty can withdraw from the treaty with a notice of one year, considerably shorter time frame than necessary for terraforming Mars, I suppose. If the US won't withdraw, then other countries would. And there are already nations that haven't signed it. Also, Spacex is not a party to the treaty. The treaty binds the countries, not their citizens or companies. I don't know if there are internal…
I know, and I didn't say it was. Only nations can ratify treaties. However, the OST states that "States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities" [1].
> I doubt a treaty from 1967 would hold back SpaceX.
SpaceX is a US corporation and is subject to US law. If maintaining the OST is in the interests of the US then SpaceX would absolutely be held back.
I think of the OST as a sort of Nash equilibrium. Given the current situation (no terraforming on the horizon), it is arguably the best place for everyone to be. If the rules change in the future them some different set of controls would come into play.
[1] http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we can't terraform Earth's deserts, do we really stand a chance with Mars? It's not that we couldn't, it's that we don't care to - partly because the reward isn't there, and partly because there are opposing interests. Humans absolutely have had (and are having) large-scale impact on the Earth's climate, and that's while mostly trying not to.
It is easy to have an effect on something, and much harder to have a positive one. Building a house takes months, but in a day, it can be burnt. Fighting entropy 101.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amassing great wealth implies that metals and barren lands on Earth are currently rare & expensive. They're not. Metals: choose an elemental metal you think is rare. Look up it's Wikipedia entry, and look at its availability. It will be expressed in terms of a percentage of the earth's crust, something like 0.01%. Multiply that by 2.6*10^22 kg and realize that we're not going to run out of it any time soon, nor is it…
And the weather is much nicer, even in Saskatchewan! You get all the air you can breath! Honestly though - isn't Venus more likely to take well to terraforming
Unless there is a way to massively mine the rocks for the hydrogen and oxigen, there is no other way to terraform a planet like Mars or Venus. I am afraid that would put the terraforming efforts like hundreds of years ahead.
Humans belong to one of the most, if not THE most, destructive species on Earth. We exploit all resources we can lay our hands on and destroy plants and animals in the wake of our immense and selfish greed. We would serve the Universe best if we stayed here on Earth, and possibly even obliterated ourselves.