11–20 of 187 posts
The first is some breakthrough in physics that makes interstellar travel feasible. Not likely, but a staple of sci-fi.
The second is a series of improvements in nanotechnology making interplanetary colonies feasible (though less necessary).
And the looming confounding factor is that a "singularity" event might make all of this moot.
So you're saying there's a chance!
One interesting thing about sending some future human AI into space is that it could in theory 'power down' higher functions for hundreds or thousands of years as it travels to its destination. Upon reawakening, it would be in a new star system, with the cumulation of human knowledge in memory and enough tech to reproduce and start anew.
That's a good, grounded assessment of the scale of the problem. I too believe that the human colonization of space, even near-space (ie within the orbit of the Moon) is a long way off. The energy costs are simply too high and resources too cheap on the Earth to make it viable (in spite of typical SF fodder of asteroid mining). This is a problem because with 6.5 billion people we're using up resources. Fast. Anyway, I…
Funny how solar sails seem like the easier option to build, but for interstellar travel you need enormous lasers near the home star to push the sail as it gets further away. Might as well build black holes with the lasers and solar collectors.
"The future extinction of the human species cannot affect you if you are already dead": I thought one of the implications of evolution was that we have a vested interest in protecting our genes, rather than acting solely on individual-level self-interest. Edit: What on earth would cause you to downvote this? Edit2: Thanks. I would still appreciate a comment if I'm 'doing it wrong.'
+1. Indeed, the entire post seems to glibly sidestep the question of what rational humans would do. The author implies that we only have a rational interest in what happens during our lifespan. But many of us, through childbearing or other means, try to leave something of value behind us. Irrational? Perhaps. But there's no reason pure hedonism should be any less irrational.
"That's the same as the yield of the entire US Minuteman III ICBM force." So you're saying there's a chance!
What was that limit on data transmission via copper again? 300baud? Or was it 1400? Nice the way science always ends for idiots like this...