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

Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity?

#41

Post by cryptoz »

retube wrote: post #35
zeemonkee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely to lead to increased competition between nations/corporations (see the dash for colonization in 19c, leading up to WW1).

Possibly. My reasoning is that, unlike colonization, these projects are so big as to be impossible by one nation. They can only be attempted through co-operation by many.

A manned trip to Mars is estimated at ~$50 billion. Assume that NASA goes twice over budget and it costs $100 billion.

That's cheap! Any modern developed country could send a crew to Mars in 10 years. However, nobody has done it because nobody has devoted the resources to that cause.

The bank bailouts were around $700 billion, for comparison.

Space travel is cheap compared to the rest of what we do.

Re: Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity?

#42

Post by yummyfajitas »

jsn wrote: post #39

I refuse to be united with humanity. And it's not just me. Differences are good, disagreements are good, and diversity is good. Including differences in goals, values, priorities and everything else. If you have some serious differences and if you want to avoid conflicts, you probably shouldn't keep pushing to unite. You probably should separate. Like, you know, if a family can't agree on some important set of issues…

I generally agree with you, but concerning an issue like global warming specifically, you are wrong.

For issues like global warming/pollution, it doesn't help to separate. If the US pollutes less and China picks up the slack, the earth will be just as warm (including the US). Separation is a great solution to some problems, but it doesn't solve the problem of how to pay for global public goods (it deals with local ones nicely, however).

Re: Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity?

#44

Post by transphenomenal »

Changing everyones genes so we are all a lot more tolerant of each other and so bigotry is wiped out.

Also we need much, much faster transportation, like trains that can travel around the world in 3-4 hours. This way we can see our "neighbors" much more often and no longer have a sub-concious fear of the unknown.

Re: Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity?

#45

Post by borism »

arethuza wrote: post #27
zeemonkee wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extremely high tech (presumably large H-bombs on large rockets) How is 40s/50s technology high tech ?

You don't think designing a system that can deliver bombs deep into space is high tech? It's not like we could get a Saturn-5 out of storage, fuel it up, stick a Tsar Bomba on the top and hope for the best.

H-bombs are sitting on tops of 30-year old space rockets right now.

Sending them to defeat asteroid might be even more devastating than not sending them though.

Re: Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity?

#46

Post by retube »

cryptoz wrote: post #41
retube wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. My reasoning is that, unlike colonization, these projects are so big as to be impossible by one nation. They can only be attempted through co-operation by many.

A manned trip to Mars is estimated at ~$50 billion. Assume that NASA goes twice over budget and it costs $100 billion. That's cheap! Any modern developed country could send a crew to Mars in 10 years. However, nobody has done it because nobody has devoted the resources to that cause. The bank bailouts were around $700 billion, for comparison. Space travel is cheap compared to the rest of what we do.

I think that's a low-ball cost. I've seen some estimates at $1 tr. But still yes, the US (and the US alone) could conceivably afford that (compare to cost of Iraq for example), so I take your point. However, even so, i don't think even the US would (or should) attempt this alone. (It's not just cash, but expertise too).

Re the bailout figure: this is slightly misleading. This isn't money that's just been "spent". It's been invested - in purchasing assets and equity from the bailed out institutions. These institutions are largely expected to buy back these investments at a later date netting the US govt a profit (some already have). Additionally of course, the cost of NOT bailing out the banks may have been much, much more. So I don't think it's a comparable number.

Re: Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity?

#47

Post by arethuza »

borism wrote: post #45
arethuza wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think designing a system that can deliver bombs deep into space is high tech? It's not like we could get a Saturn-5 out of storage, fuel it up, stick a Tsar Bomba on the top and hope for the best.

H-bombs are sitting on tops of 30-year old space rockets right now. Sending them to defeat asteroid might be even more devastating than not sending them though.

ICBMs don't even make it to orbit - if you wait till an asteroid is close enough that an ICBM could hit it then you might as well not bother.

[NB I do know that the SS-25 could do fractional orbits.]

Re: Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity?

#48

Post by mathgladiator »

rrc wrote: post #28

I thought about immortality, but I suspect you'd fail to enlist the (massive) religious populations of Earth since you'd be competing directly with their existing power structure and investment. It's odd to think that it's already a saturated market.

It's not just odd, its kinda depressing
Post reply on HN