Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#81

Post by perilunar »

grondilu wrote: post #52
perilunar wrote: post #40

As Gerard K. O'Neill famously asked, "Is the surface of a planet really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?"[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill#Space_colo...

Thought about that as well. There's a nice PBS Space Time episode where they invented a word about it : "surfacism". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag

O'Neill wasn't talking about the clouds of Venus though, he was talking about colonies in orbit or beyond, made from materials mined from asteroids.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#82

Post by lmm »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #51
lmm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does a Chinese planet and a US planet and a Facebook moon represent a useful and viable future? I'd say it's a better future than the "no terraforming at all" future. And I suspect the "wait until UN-like bodies are competent and willing to organize terraforming" future is actually the "no terraforming at all" future.

In the sense that we need to remove our dependence on a single-point-of-failure planet to avoid existential risk, then I agree that terraforming is ultimately desirable. But entire planets claimed by crushingly authoritarian political systems or uncontrolled profit-seeking corporations doesn't seem like a great way to safeguard humanity either. What do you want terraforming for?

Primarily avoiding the single point of failure. Extremely secondarily, to create a diversity of human cultures, because I think that will ultimately create a bunch of things people enjoy (better art etc.).

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#83

Post by eksemplar »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #50
danblick wrote: post #38

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.

If you look into international politics and even the financial elite, the will to change and adapt green policies is there, more so than in the general public.

Which is exactly the problem. Nobody is going to follow a leader preventing them from buying 7 different iPhones even though you probably only needed one.

Which is a simplification, but the middle class is completely dependent on economic growth. Both as consumers, but mainly as workers.

I think there is a lot of hope for change though, I mean, automation is going to make 60% of the current workforce obsolete over the next 20 years. With that comes a need for change.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#84

Post by restalis »

kseistrup wrote: post #55
noir_lord wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on the other side of this one, while I think it's stupid to wreck the Earth because we need it I don't see why we shouldn't expand out and use the resources, they are just rocks waiting for us to do something with them.

We don't know yet if they're just rocks. And if we can't take care of Earth, I fail to see how we could ever take care of another planet.

For the most activities we embark on, none of us is ready for. We just jump in and learn on the fly, the journey itself transforms and adapts us. So, maybe we haven't learned enough about taking care of a planet, but that's not a reason to hold ourselves back ...isn't it?

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#85

Post by abainbridge »

sktrdie wrote: post #76

I'm always confused about our priority for us to become a multi-planetary species. Planets are interesting to us for their resources, but they provide a far greater risk: they're another huge gravity well. This means that it's expensive/resourceful to leave these places (as it currently is for earth). So I'm confused to why not make space habitats our priority instead of other planets. Certainly inhabiting planets is…

Even Mars' pathetic magnetosphere is probably better than nothing (ie what you'd get on a Stanford Torus).

Either way, meteor showers will be life threatening, instead of pretty, like they are on Earth.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#86

Post by delecti »

sktrdie wrote: post #76

I'm always confused about our priority for us to become a multi-planetary species. Planets are interesting to us for their resources, but they provide a far greater risk: they're another huge gravity well. This means that it's expensive/resourceful to leave these places (as it currently is for earth). So I'm confused to why not make space habitats our priority instead of other planets. Certainly inhabiting planets is…

Probably because planets help defend you really really well. The gravity well makes it much easier to keep an atmosphere, the atmosphere blocks UV rays and the majority of harmful falling objects, the planet's magnetic field helps block higher energy solar rays.

Plus, if there's a breathable atmosphere on the planet, your habitat isn't limited to the space you can enclose in a bubble.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#87

Post by CoryG89 »

khoury wrote: post #16
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #10

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-…

Does the concept of "owning" even exist outside of earth? Interesting times.

Ask the flag they planted on the moon.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#88

Post by abainbridge »

danblick wrote: post #38

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.…

Western governments seem to think that economic growth is absolutely necessary. Dunno why. But obviously that isn't sustainable for much longer on our current planet.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#89

Post by kseistrup »

feintruled wrote: post #77
kseistrup wrote: post #44

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.

There is an irony here in that we are the only beings we (yet) know of that in any way appreciate the universe on an aethestic level, on subjective criteria we have determined ourselves. So we would be obliterating ourselves to save the universe for... ?

… to save the Universe for the death and destruction that follows almost everything we do. All other life on Earth would thrive if we were not here.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#90

Post by thatfrenchguy »

3pt14159 wrote: post #18
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #10

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-…

The Outer Space Treaty was written with the party states knowing that it was a medium term measure. Capitalism will come to The Moon, Mars, and Venus. It will start with people just building wherever there is available land, like we did on the frontier, then once a couple thousand or a couple hundred thousand people are in outer space a new treaty will be formed around the political realities of the day.

"Capitalism will come to The Moon, Mars, and Venus"

Or maybe it will be replaced by something else on the Earth, I don't think we can predict the future yet.

Post reply on HN