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

There’s no planet B

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 245 posts

Re: There’s no planet B

#81

Post by fleventynine »

lapcat wrote: post #74
fleventynine wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nice thing about frontiers is that there's enough space (and lack of oversight) to try new systems of government without upsetting "the establishment", which hasn't yet had centuries to ossify into an out-of-touch bureaucracy. When America was a frontier, this exploration yielded significant fruits...

> The nice thing about frontiers is that there's enough space (and lack of oversight) to try new systems of government This is a nice idea if the frontier is accessible by foot, horse, or boat. If the frontier is accessible only via corporate-owned spaceship, then the frontier will inevitably be a corporate-owned dictatorship.

Only until the colony can become self sufficient. The colonists will eventually develop more loyalty to each other rather than silly institutions on a planet 9-48 months away that know nothing of the harsh reality of martian life.

Re: There’s no planet B

#82

Post by adrianN »

fleventynine wrote: post #72
adrianN wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the current iteration of the space race is run by billionaires, the chances are pretty good that some kind of turbo-capitalism will be the social arrangement on the colonies.

The nice thing about frontiers is that there's enough space (and lack of oversight) to try new systems of government without upsetting "the establishment", which hasn't yet had centuries to ossify into an out-of-touch bureaucracy. When America was a frontier, this exploration yielded significant fruits...

Off-world colonies are extremely dependent on high technology. You can't just pack your things and start a homestead a few dozen miles away from your corporate overlords.

Re: There’s no planet B

#83

Post by charles_f »

mabbo wrote: post #32

Let's set aside the part that making a planet where we could live is hard. Just presume we did that, to start. Let's talk Logistics . Presume there are only 1 billion people left on Earth when we decide it's time to go. How do you get them there ? The gravity well holding us here (and holding the air down so we can breath it) is pretty darn strong. Today we're hoping to get cost-to-orbit down to around $100/kg. I wei…

> Presume there are only 1 billion people left on Earth when we decide it's time to go

The scenario that leads to have only 1B left from where we're at would entail such a catastrophic meltdown of society that even building a rocket would likely not be feasible, let alone anything significant for a human exode.

Think about it, you're fighting against something that killed 7B people, be it the end of fossil fuels, climate change, a massive and deadly pandemic, a war or another type of catastrophe. There are probably global food shortage, areas that can't be lived in anymore. The global supply chain doesn't exist anymore, and government is much more localized, very different. Being down to 1B is probably not the bottom line of your decline, 1B people is still a lot. Your priorities are based on survival, you're trying to figure out how to grow enough food, gather enough water. You don't have enough reserve capacity that you can spare it on projects like building a lot of rockets and colonizing another planet.

Rockets are a thing of complex societies with abondant energy ; not a last minute effort to preserve the human race.

Re: There’s no planet B

#84

Post by fleddr »

Humans are simply not organized to take care of long term issues.

A system of nation states ensures a "tragedy of the commons" situation where everybody optimizes for their own short term interests. One failed climate summit after the other cements this reality. And this isn't just national selfishness, most nation states have existential short term issues to deal with.

At the national level, assuming a democracy, politicians run in 4-5 year terms. Who will get the vote? The politician promising tax cuts or the one proposing unpopular climate measures that increase your cost of living? You know the answer.

The current narrative that our leaders are too corrupt or incompetent is only half the story. The issue very much is part of all of us. When giving the choice to do the long term thing, we prefer the short term thing.

We're wired that way. Just like we're wired to go for junk food. We should start thinking that way going forward: we're too flawed and limited to do what is right for us in the long term. And then work from there. The idea that there's good people and bad people and we just need to convince the bad people, is flawed.

My "lived experience" is that people do not care. They don't care about nature. They don't care about other countries. They care only about what is right in front of them, and what is there right now. Everything else is abstract and unimportant.

This too you can read as evil or narcissism, but it's just how our species are. As individuals, we're not designed to take on the burden of an entire planet. We're small scale social primates and think and acts as such. The very idea of a global community (and abstract thinking) is brand new.

My point is to not wait for a moment where we all "turn good". The current inaction or indifference is our natural state. At a global level, people will never ever prioritize long term issues over short term issues, this behavioral change isn't coming.

Re: There’s no planet B

#85

Post by paulryanrogers »

adrianN wrote: post #66
paulryanrogers wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desire is reasonable. Yet permanently settling Mars or beyond is unreasonable based on some fundamental physics.

Which laws of physics prevent a permanent base on Mars?

Gravity primarily and the lack of carbon on the surface. Also the lack of a magnetic field to maintain atmosphere and shield from radiation.

Re: There’s no planet B

#86

Post by lapcat »

fleventynine wrote: post #81
lapcat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The nice thing about frontiers is that there's enough space (and lack of oversight) to try new systems of government This is a nice idea if the frontier is accessible by foot, horse, or boat. If the frontier is accessible only via corporate-owned spaceship, then the frontier will inevitably be a corporate-owned dictatorship.

Only until the colony can become self sufficient. The colonists will eventually develop more loyalty to each other rather than silly institutions on a planet 9-48 months away that know nothing of the harsh reality of martian life.

What does loyalty to each other mean exactly? Do Americans have loyalty to each other? Do North Koreans?

The (hypothetical) colonists would develop loyalty to their own silly, strictly hierarchical government that was imposed on them. (For some strange reason, many Americans still have loyalty to a 200 year old document. And others have loyalty to 2000 year old documents.) As usual, some people will benefit greatly from the hierarchy and fight to the death to preserve it. Some other people might fight to the death to overthrow it. Perhaps they'll have a civil war, which likely won't end well for anyone, given that survival on Mars would be tenuous in the very best of circumstances.

Note that "terrorism" on Mars could be an extinction-level event for colonists.

Not to mention, if the Mars colonists get uppity, then Earth can send a fleet of warships to put down the rebellion. Hell, Earth could just launch unmanned missile strikes at Mars. Wipe the slate clean and start over.

Re: There’s no planet B

#87

Post by roryisok »

alienalp wrote: post #78
roryisok wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of finding another Earth is not so much about moving everyone from Earth to somewhere else, but rather about "backing up" our species and civilisation in additional places. If an asteroid is going to wipe out Earth, we can't evacuate 8 billion people, or even 8 million people. but if we had a few generations of colonists in domes on Mars, or floating in the clouds on Venus, or somewhere else, the species its…

In reality this is just a fantasy. It is not possible for a healthy human to really care about survival of human race in case of something catastrophic happening and wiping out humanity.

Why?

Healthy people care about having descendants they'll never meet.

Re: There’s no planet B

#88

Post by chrsw »

I'm trying to imagine a world where terraforming planets and intersteller travel are solved problems but keeping Earth hospitable is beyond our capability. Doesn't seem plausible. But on the flip side, I can clearly see how if we fail to keep this planet livable we have no hope of reaching other livable worlds.

Re: There’s no planet B

#89

Post by zdragnar »

ben_w wrote: post #79
giantrobot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just magic woo though. You can't just "3D print" a clean room to build semiconductors or furnaces to smelt metal. Pretty much all heavy industry on Earth that makes all our high technology runs on petroleum products in some fashion. You can't just "3D print" lubrication and good luck building heavy industrial pieces without it.

Hmmm. While I would be actively surprised if the Moon, for example, had every element necessary for semiconductors, one of the things I absolutely do expect to be possible on its surface is 3D printing an extremely clean clean-room. Furnaces? Well, I think it would take a polishing step after printing, but if you have aluminium you can do a rough parabola out of it and focus sunlight on a patch of regolith. Can you t…

> electrolysis

That's a process that involves drawing ions through solution towards a cathode and anode. A direct beam won't do.

A solar furnace would suffice for the first half of the smelting process if you have access to ore which is not pure alumina, as well as melting the cryolite flux. Actually separating out the aluminum from alumina requires PV panels, high temperature rods and some means of synthesizing the cryolite or similar solvent / flux.

Re: There’s no planet B

#90

Post by charles_f »

api wrote: post #37
RGamma wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Edit: Liquid) Wealth represents economic surplus, much of which is gained unsustainably. The least we should expect is that this surplus doesn't also chase pipe dreams, because these have an additional opportunity cost.

The global perfume industry is about $50 billion. The porn industry is estimated to be between $6 and $15 billion. The NASA budget is $24 billion, so somewhere between porn and perfume. Also much of billionaires' net worth is fictitious paper. You can see this in Musk "losing" $150 billion dollars. That never really existed in the first place. It was leveraged value of things like stocks, not liquid wealth. What actu…

> The global perfume industry is about $50 billion. The porn industry is estimated to be between $6 and $15 billion. The NASA budget is $24 billion, so somewhere between porn and perfume.

If you're doing global markets, add to it budgets from the Chinese space program (9b) ESA (~5b), roscosmos (~4b), jaxa (2b). That's an extra 20b that puts it at about perfume

Post reply on HN