It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by cthalupa » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

defterGoose wrote: post #197

keiferski wrote: post #92

I don't know, I can't help but feel like nearly all of our solutions to contemporary problems involve space travel, specifically self-contained space travel (i.e., when spaceships become within an order of magnitude as affordable as houses or automobiles.) The universe is essentially limitless from a human point of view, so to be perpetually stuck on Earth seems like a failure of perspective. - Oppressive government…

| I don't know You certainly don't. You have a serious misunderstanding of the sheer scale involved in space travel. Its great to think that an individual will be able to pack up their space car in 200 years and move on out west to mars or something, but there literally wont be anything to do but crash land once you get there, or maybe if you're lucky, walk around for a few hours before suffocating. Im not saying it'…

Terraforming planets in a meaningful way anytime soon is a pipe dream, but someone in 200 years very much could get in their space car and go to a different space habitat. O'Neill cylinders have already been mentioned here.

There's no scientific reason we are aware of that would make living in artificial habitats worse than living on a planet, and a lot of reasons that it would be better. It's just that those of us talking now live on a planet, and find the idea of continuing to live on a planet comforting.

Someone born on an O'Neill cylinder or similar will likely have no such compunctions.

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

#232

Post by goatlover » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

save_ferris wrote: post #12

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

It's not that great advancements have cost. The argument is that focusing on space exploration deflects from facing the realities of climate change on our planet. If people start to think that space exploration could yield a solution to an increasingly uninhabitable climate on Earth, it could create a scenario where we spend even more on space exploration and less on addressing Earth's climate.

The world and the US are hardly focusing on space travel. It’s a fraction of government budgets and resources. Militaries have a far larger focus, as do various economic activities.

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

#233

Post by novalis78 » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

It's dangerous, for some, it seems, for naked apes to leave the trees. Yes! Fire was the first step in the wrong direction... Why don't these self professed 'saviors of planet Earth' strip themselves of all technological advancement and return to the true and original and sinless first habitat of homo 'sapiens sapiens' - but leave those of us who dream of the stars alone.

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

#234

Post by cthalupa » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #116

keiferski wrote: post #92

I don't know, I can't help but feel like nearly all of our solutions to contemporary problems involve space travel, specifically self-contained space travel (i.e., when spaceships become within an order of magnitude as affordable as houses or automobiles.) The universe is essentially limitless from a human point of view, so to be perpetually stuck on Earth seems like a failure of perspective. - Oppressive government…

You are really underestimating exponential growth in your assertion that there is no such thing as overpopulation on a universal scale. If human population is doubling say, every century, then the time it takes for us to go from populating the earth to the entire galaxy in less than 4000 years[1], and from there to the entire universe in less than another 4000. [1]: There are a few trillion planets in our galaxy. If…

Well, the universe is likely infinite, so no, there's really no such thing as overpopulation on a universal scale.

But talking about humans populating the universe is also meaningless, since the speed of light and expansion of the universe means we can't reach anything but a tiny fraction of it, and by the time we have the technology to travel quickly enough to even begin contemplating intergalactic journeys only a fraction of a fraction will be within reach.

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

#235

Post by freeqaz » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

zeristor wrote: post #120

freeqaz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we captured an asteroid we would immediately double or triple the world's supply of metals like platinum. They simply are not plentiful for us on the crust. I like to believe that we can achieve this within our lifetime. Having the price of certain rarer metals come down significantly would be amazing!

Come down siginificantly? So much depends on demand, one of the more sophisticated analyses I've seen realised that Nickel (at the time) was a good bet since it was fairly expensive and in high demand. Also people hold gold as a store of value, if it becomes cheap then they might as well sell that too. Sure we could start using gold as ship ballast...

Very much so! But the idea is fascinating. What if the price of platinum was on par with aluminum? What kind of products could exist that simply can out today?

This[0] article puts it into perspective just how much metals exist out there.

Seems like most of the precious metals we have access to are from previous asteroid collisions. There is a theory that the last age ~12k years ago was from an asteroid impact, and that it can be traced due to changes in platinum levels.

Whoever figures out how to mine metals from space rocks is going to have an interest problem to face. They can't just dump it all onto the market -- they'll have to pull a move similar to the diamond industry. Stockpile it and constrain supply (because of their monopoly) to keep the prices high enough to make a profit from the (risky) endeavor.

One can dream :)

0: https://strangesounds.org/2019/06/asteroid-16-psyche-gold-me...

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

#236

Post by goatlover » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #56

save_ferris wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that great advancements have cost. The argument is that focusing on space exploration deflects from facing the realities of climate change on our planet. If people start to think that space exploration could yield a solution to an increasingly uninhabitable climate on Earth, it could create a scenario where we spend even more on space exploration and less on addressing Earth's climate.

If Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk (while Elon isn't posting moronic nonsense on Twitter) would take all the money they've invested in their pet projects trying to colonize Mars and the like and directly invested it in local programs to get some of the worst areas in the USA affected by homelessness fixed, it would likely have a greater impact on more peoples lives than what they're doing now IMO.

Maybe because it’s the governments job to address homelessness, not Bezos and Musk. Also, does throwing money at the problem fix it? What is the fix? Do they know? Do you? How do you know they don’t also donate to charities?

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

#237

Post by e_y_ » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:54 PM UTC

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…

I think it might be better to say that's not beyond our current level of scientific understanding (it doesn't require any exotic materials or new physics). However it's likely beyond our practical engineering capabilities.

Early spaceflight up through Apollo was done with an army of humans with slide rules and rivet guns. We did it because there was a political imperative to do so. A lot of new technology was developed as a result. But it ended up being unsustainable because it was too expensive.

I think the key to making O'Neill cylinders feasible will be large scale outer space resource mining and in-space manufacturing. Both will require advanced robotics and AI. We could throw a bunch of money into developing that ... or we could just wait for the technology to develop here on Earth and then apply it to space.

Likewise, as much as I'd like to see a Mars outpost in my lifetime, it would be a lot cheaper and safer if we didn't rush it. Maybe by 2075 we'll have cured cancer and radiation won't be an issue, and we'll have self-repairing life support systems and one of those automated medical pods from the Alien movies.

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

#238

Post by goatlover » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #102

Dig1t wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is not to impact the lives of individuals. The goal is to preserve intelligence in the event of a catastrophe. As far as we know, we are the only part of the universe that is capable of consciousness. The argument is that it is worth going to great lengths to insure against species-wide disasters (e.g. runaway global warming, giant meteor, World War 3) Its macro-level thinking versus micro-level.

The earth becoming uninhabitable due to climate change is going to happen way sooner than any pipe dream of folks trying to live on Mars, if they were really concerned about preserving the human species they would be putting billions of dollars into that instead.

The Earth didn’t become uninhabitable to animals and plants when volcanic activity raised the CO2 level to six times the current amount preceding dinosaur evolution. And it won’t happen for us either. That doesn’t mean climate change won’t be a significant challenge, but it’s not an extinction level event for generalists like humans who can survive in all sorts of environments.

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

#239

Post by powerapple » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

marta_morena_28 wrote: post #219

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…

> We can prioritize both, and frankly, life on Earth will be better the more we priotitize space exploration, not worse. This is a pretty baseless claim. Space exploration, within the next 50 years, will yield utterly nothing for humans on earth. We want to colonize Mars or the Moon? Great, but what for? You know how much all these things cost? Trillions per large economy. With that money you can do quite a lot to in…

I like Jeff Bezos' idea very much. Earth is so nice, but we are facing climate change, energy problem and pollutions. Why not shift factories, mine energy and other resources from other planet, and we can live on earth without damaging it too quickly. It sounds a lot better than moving people to other planets.

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

#240

Post by FlyMoreRockets » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

diab0lic wrote: post #103

zekrioca wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were people living in the Americas before your ancestors arrived there.

> or even left Africa. I think it's pretty clear the parent post is talking about the first people to migrate to the Americas.

Polynesians?