Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species • Hacker News Board

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#101

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:02 PM UTC

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #29

3pt14159 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. In some ways the OST resembles the Antarctic Treaty: intended to mitigate the near and medium-term problems until something new comes along. And I don't have a problem with capitalism per se , but our legal and political systems don't seem to be doing a very good job of managing its excesses.

Used to do better. Then we 'deregulated'

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#102

Post by bhaak » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:03 PM UTC

kseistrup wrote: post #89

feintruled wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We were not the first and if we vanish we wouldn't have been the last life on Earth that would be destructive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe

Such apparently is life on Earth. We are not special.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#103

Post by kseistrup » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:05 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #96

kseistrup wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

… 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.

Not substantiated in geologic history. Life collapsed repeatedly.

You're right, but did it collapse because of the behaviour of a single species?

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#104

Post by creshal » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:06 PM UTC

abainbridge wrote: post #88

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.

And the rest of the world would rather try to reach the same standard of living than voluntarily suffer more to save the planet for the western elites.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#105

Post by zacharycohn » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:08 PM UTC

apatters wrote: post #45

tehmillhouse wrote: post #2

Judging by the preview image for the live stream (yeah, I wish I had more to go on, too), this looks to be a long-haul plan for terraforming mars. I wouldn't hold my breath for the first actual settlements up there. That being said: Yes. Oh yes. Fuck yes. All my yesses.

I'm just as impressed by SpaceX's achievements as the next guy but the Musk fanboyism is really getting out of control here. He's not going to terraform Mars, because we have no idea how to do it, the cost would likely be measurable in "percentage of all human GDP" terms, and it would take longer than a single human life, it'd probably have to be the longest-haul plan humanity had ever undertaken. If the announcement…

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago.

The second best time is today.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#106

Post by feintruled » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:14 PM UTC

kseistrup wrote: post #89

feintruled wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But again, it is only us humans that value diversity. You would be obliterating the only species that would appreciate the thing you are obliterating them to preserve.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#107

Post by Gatsky » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:15 PM UTC

Like flying to the moon, colonising Mars isn't a 'bad' idea. It won't harm anyone, most of humanity will keep on doing what it's doing. It doesn't take away important resources from environmentalism or other pressing causes, that's a zero sum fallacy. Musk's point is to push forward relentlessly to a future which incrementally improves humanity's chance of survival. Even if we stop messing up earth, an asteroid or a north korean engineered super flu could still end us while we watch solar powered TV and eat kale chips.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#108

Post by ema » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:16 PM UTC

harperlee wrote: post #37

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a high chance. Earth has a molten core, which generates a magnetic field that shields us from harmful cosmic rays. It's been like this for so long that we've evolved to require this shielding. Mars has less of a molten core, and a very weak magnetosphere. Therefore outdoor terraforming seems unlikely. We may have to walk around on Mars inside shielded colonies only, along with whatever other life we bring: plants…

So could we engineer ourselves to be able to withstand more radiation? Perhaps with advances in cancer treatment and CRISPR-style modifications on the most fragile parts of the genome we can make us more resilient so we can become a multiplanetary species... On the other hand, sending life to Mars, due to that radiation, would make it evolve much faster, right? Perhaps we can start terraforming it and study the evolu…

> On the other hand, sending life to Mars, due to that radiation, would make it evolve much faster, right?

The bottleneck in evolution isn't mutations but selection events (~= number of organisms).

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#109

Post by Gatsky » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:20 PM UTC

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.…

Astro Teller has every opportunity to make significant advances, but risks nothing and achieves nothing.

Elon Musk is the complete opposite.

I think the former really has no right to say anything about the latter.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#110

Post by harperlee » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 1:23 PM UTC

ema wrote: post #108

harperlee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So could we engineer ourselves to be able to withstand more radiation? Perhaps with advances in cancer treatment and CRISPR-style modifications on the most fragile parts of the genome we can make us more resilient so we can become a multiplanetary species... On the other hand, sending life to Mars, due to that radiation, would make it evolve much faster, right? Perhaps we can start terraforming it and study the evolu…

> On the other hand, sending life to Mars, due to that radiation, would make it evolve much faster, right? The bottleneck in evolution isn't mutations but selection events (~= number of organisms).

Oh, I didn't know that. But wouldn't a larger mutation probability result in more variability and hence quicker findings of improvement paths? (plus avoiding local maxima)