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

It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

techeffect.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 325 posts

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#171

Post by JoeAltmaier »

phizy wrote: post #167
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single correct thing in that, I believe! Life on Earth has evolved to live in hundreds of dissimilar environments. Heavy salt is toxic, yet fish manage the ocean. Yellowstone has life in mud pots at hundreds of degrees. Air doesn't exist underground yet bacteria thrive there. Hell, there are living things on the surface of the space station. To get people to tolerate more salt, we'd have to have a fish's abilit…

>In 40 generations of space colonization, that's 40 times 30,000 times however long it takes to rebuild the capability on each colony. Assuming each generation survives. Stop making that assumption, and see how many ways there are for you to reach a similarly empty universe. >It's not optimism; its simple observation of what we have already on Earth in existing life forms. I wish you'd observe that none of Earth's li…

Again, not true. Geometric growth can't be dismissed. Even if 90% didn't survive, it just takes (a little) longer.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#172

Post by EasyTiger_ »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #3

I've seen more anti-space rhetoric in the last few weeks than ever before in my life. What gives? Great advancements have cost. That doesn't make them not worth doing

I agree and it’s starting to feel like there’s an agenda behind it

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#173

Post by Animats »

macspoofing wrote: post #106
Justsignedup wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is important to understand differences: The future of humanity is not only on earth. Too much risk, too limited resources. HOWEVER the future of humanity in space is NOT "tomorrow we lift off a giant spaceship with everyone on it." If we survive a few hundred years we might see some amount of human civilization outside of earth, but for many hundreds of years after more practical space tech comes about mos…

>The future of humanity is not only on earth. Where are you going to go? Outside of Earth, there is no place for us in the entire Solar System. Sure we may build some research stations here and there, just as we did in inhospitable places on Earth (like Antarctica), but there's no long-term option anywhere. Interstellar travel is science fiction, but even if it wasn't, there is no place for us to go as well.

Right. That was modded down, but it's realistic. All the off-earth real estate in the solar system is inhabitable only at huge cost. Mars barely has an atmosphere.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#174

Post by jcranmer »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #112
phizy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a powerful argument for 'we must be alone', because it's an equally powerful argument for 'space colonization is nearly impossible.' You're saying things are "certainly possible" but you don't have a shred of evidence to support that belief. It's more likely that you're vastly underestimating the cost of maintaining a life-supporting ecosystem independent of the benefits of a billions of years of evolutionar…

That thinking is about a decade out of date. The number of expolanets that are in the habitable zone grows geometrically. Some think every star has some planets. Simple chance makes it possible to find agreeable destinations nearly everywhere. And 'evolutionary adaptation' is irrelevant. We can change ourselves (are changing ourselves) genetically already. That will only increase. The result will be a species more ad…

You're ignoring what I believe to be the most important point: how do we know that is actually possible to build an interstellar colonial vessel?

Or, to bring a concrete element to the question: all known rocket fuels require some nonrenewable Earth resource. How much fuel does it take to launch a vessel built with currently-known technology that would be capable of landing a living human being on a hypothetical planet around Alpha Centauri? And what does that fuel number look like, when expressed in terms of "years of current resource extraction" (or, somewhat more audaciously, percentage of known proven reserves)?

To my knowledge, interstellar colonization is flat-out impossible with current technology. (I'd argue that even intrastellar colonization is impossible, rather than impractical). Arguing that we should discount this non-knowledge of how to do it when explaining why it hasn't happened to our observation is irresponsible to me.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#175

Post by Animats »

johnmorrison wrote: post #13

This is frankly a blatantly wrong and quite foolish argument. Space exploration has already created many significant benefits for humanity on Earth , by advancing hundreds of new technologies with terrestrial applications and launching satellite networks that support a safer, more peaceful world for humans, with improved agricultural efficiencies as well as advanced warning and a better understanding of extreme weath…

Space exploration has already created many significant benefits for humanity on Earth, by advancing hundreds of new technologies with terrestrial applications

Velcro! Tang! Teflon! Computers! NASA PR used to make a big thing of that. But those things didn't come from NASA's space program.

The ISS was a huge disappointment. It's the best argument for not putting people in space. Hugely expensive, and not very useful.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#176

Post by nsxwolf »

staplers wrote: post #127
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can change Mars in large ways. Lots of stuff written about that. Heck, we could redirect an icy asteroid to collide, providing water, atmosphere and heat. On the order of decades from now.

Human climate management shouldn't give anyone hope.

We've demonstrated that we can heat planets up.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#177

Post by snarf21 »

johnmorrison wrote: post #13

This is frankly a blatantly wrong and quite foolish argument. Space exploration has already created many significant benefits for humanity on Earth , by advancing hundreds of new technologies with terrestrial applications and launching satellite networks that support a safer, more peaceful world for humans, with improved agricultural efficiencies as well as advanced warning and a better understanding of extreme weath…

I agree we need both. I still think it is many many magnitudes harder for us to get to Mars or build a sustained presence on the Moon than to solve some of the energy or other problems we have on Earth. We have almost endless resources here but (largely) politically we aren't interested in solving them. I'm all for exploration and learning. The question is about the goal. Is our goal to learn about the Moon and our solar system or to have a significant human settlement (not involved in research) on the Moon? I'm pro-space and pro-exploration but not pro "we've killed the Earth but we'll do better on Mars".

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#178

Post by phizy »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #171
phizy wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 40 generations of space colonization, that's 40 times 30,000 times however long it takes to rebuild the capability on each colony. Assuming each generation survives. Stop making that assumption, and see how many ways there are for you to reach a similarly empty universe. >It's not optimism; its simple observation of what we have already on Earth in existing life forms. I wish you'd observe that none of Earth's li…

Again, not true. Geometric growth can't be dismissed. Even if 90% didn't survive, it just takes (a little) longer.

How the hell is a 10% survival rate "not optimism?" Try a trillionth of a percent. It makes an astronomical time difference.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#179

Post by ben_w »

RobertoG wrote: post #122
travisoneill1 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make the place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder Obviously this is far beyond our current level of technology, though.

It's absolutely not beyond our current level of technology. Unfortunately, there are not economic incentives yet. Now, this(1) it's beyond our current level, but one can dream. It's obvious to me that this is the most probable future and I would not be surprise if, at some point, most humanity is living in this kind of environment instead of planets. Planets have a lot of disadvantages. (1) - https://en.wikipedia.org…

Has anyone demonstrated manufacturing non-trivial centrifuges in space yet? Or mining and refining in space, given we can’t possibly afford to launch that much mass from the ground? Or fully modelled the lifecycle of that sort of megastructure to find out how, why, and when the chemistry of the occupants/internal farms/etc. causes fatal problems?

I’m eager to live in one of these, but I don’t think we actually know enough to build one at all yet, never mind safely.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#180

Post by [deleted] »

eindiran wrote: post #158
Retric wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self sufficient requires a manufacturing base to include everything needed to sustain it’s self, including redundancies. Going from zero humans on mars to 100’s of millions is a massive bootstrap problem with minimal incentive for the the people involved or the multiple years worth of earth’s GDP to get to that point. It’s like the “self replicating” 3D printers where they can produce 98% of the structure by weight a…

> [Y]ou need to accept [that] everyone on Mars [will] live in relative poverty for generations. I think this point is by far the easiest one to address. Historically, there have always been people willing to do dangerous things (ie exploring the Arctic / Antarctica). I don't think you'd have any trouble finding people willing to give up their Earth lifestyle for a chance to explore the "frontier" even with the knowle…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN