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

221–230 of 245 posts

Re: There’s no planet B

#221

Post by poulpy123 »

college_physics wrote: post #56

> There’s No Planet B The mere need to state this suggests we are facing a serious problem internalizing our condition. We are not taking seriously the implications of human choices and actions when multiplied by billions. The sustainability of our living on Earth was not even a visible problem 300 years ago [0]. It is far more of a problem now and could become a terminal problem 300 years from now. 300 years is noth…

> The sustainability of our living on Earth was not even a visible problem 300 years ago

It was not even a problem 100 years ago, and I would even say 50 years ago except for some people (some being crazy)

Re: There’s no planet B

#222

Post by poulpy123 »

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...

The significant fruits being ?

Re: There’s no planet B

#223

Post by poulpy123 »

karmakaze wrote: post #33
chriswarbo wrote: post #2

> This futuristic dream-like scenario is being sold to us as a real scientific possibility, with billionaires planning to move humanity to Mars in the near future. As far as I'm aware, no billionaire has ever said anything about "moving humanity" to Mars or anywhere else; except to dismiss such claims as nonsense. Nobody is "planning" such a thing; let alone for "the near future". Musk wants there to be a colony on M…

It's absurd to think that any rational person thinks that finding a suitable or terraforming a planet is a viable alternative to preserving the one we have. At the most living on Mars could be seen like a bomb-shelter for the privileged few, but even then not very soon so they'd also need life extension to make that work. At the same time, there's no reason not to continue to explore and expand. That's what tribes di…

> At the most living on Mars could be seen like a bomb-shelter for the privileged few

Not even. Having underground or underwater shelters would be much more feasible and useful for them

Re: There’s no planet B

#224

Post by poulpy123 »

Pinegulf wrote: post #7

> The scientific evidence is clear: the only celestial body that can support us is the one we evolved with. I must have missed the evidence. Exactly what were they? Additionally, don't stand in the way of those who wish to boldly go where no-one has gone before.

> I must have missed the evidence. Exactly what were they?

Several centuries of astronomy and biology

Re: There’s no planet B

#225

Post by peoplefromibiza »

roryisok wrote: post #41
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…

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…

> but rather about "backing up" our species and civilisation in additional places

If that's the goal, we should find a safe place to store the backup, or it's just hoping for the best in the worst situation possible.

Re: There’s no planet B

#226

Post by poulpy123 »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #207
palata wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid. I can live with the odds. To those who can't, may I ask a question? When you walk in the street to go to work, do you wear bullet-proof gear in case someone shoots you? I mean it may happen, just like the asteroid. It just feels weird to not accept some risk. Let's face it: space exploration is cool, that's all. No need to find excuses :)

> A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. > I can live with the odds. You may be able to, but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to. You may also live with the odds of no backup to a database, but others here will attest to the importance... > Let's face it: space ex…

> There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid.

And there is also evidence that life was able to survive despite it while not even able to start on mars

Re: There’s no planet B

#227

Post by peoplefromibiza »

6510 wrote: post #211
TomSwirly wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> basic furnaces are prehistory-era tech) Which require water and air in huge quantities, and ore, none of which you have on Mars. > That's all part of the R&D work for off-world habitats and industrializing space. You might as well say "magic" - it would be more plausible.

One thing to remember is that our guessing how things would work out has always been laughable with [say] 5 insanely complex problems we didn't see coming for every 1 thing turning out much less complicated than anticipated. How much of what we did just the last 100 years was accurately anticipated and how much of it is down right magical? In hind sight, how complicated an idea was it really to heat water, get it to…

> How much of what we did just the last 100 years was accurately anticipated and how much of it is down right magical?

How much more of what we did failed but nobody died (somebody died, but not always) because those failure happened in a hospitable environment for life?

We didn't just "magically" progress, we failed 99% of the times to evolve the process until it succeeded.

Now imagine launching 100 projects on Mars, most of which could lead to an explosion, and predict that 99 of them will fail (and probably explode)

Would you still believe "everything's gonna be fine"?

The Martian is just a good SCI-FI movie.

> In hind sight, how complicated an idea was it really to heat water, get it to expand and do work?

steam engine was well known 2,300 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

It took > 2,000 years to perfect it.

And we have free water and oxygen on Earth but no water nor oxygen on Mars.

Re: There’s no planet B

#228

Post by college_physics »

palata wrote: post #193
college_physics wrote: post #56

> There’s No Planet B The mere need to state this suggests we are facing a serious problem internalizing our condition. We are not taking seriously the implications of human choices and actions when multiplied by billions. The sustainability of our living on Earth was not even a visible problem 300 years ago [0]. It is far more of a problem now and could become a terminal problem 300 years from now. 300 years is noth…

We don't have a lot of generations before major changes happen. I believe that we won't prevent anything: we'll just try to survive to whatever happens, more or less successfully.

Its a plausible scenario. If past collapse events are a guide, future humans will simply accept whatever loss, blame it on barbaric earlier civilizations and move on with whatever is available.

The difference is that we don't consider ourselves "barbarians", but maybe nobody did in the past either...

Re: There’s no planet B

#229

Post by simiones »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #35
simiones wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they do when it's followed by "we shouldn't keep all our eggs in one basket". The only possible (though still extremely flimsy) reason for creating a Mars colony is if we think we can eventually make it self-sustaining. A non-self-sustaining colony on Mars is worse than useless.

sure - however a non-self-sustaining colony on Mars might be the first hundred years, a self-sustaining colony may be the end goal but end goals may be long out.

It is very debatable whether a current-tech Mars colony being sustained for a hundred years is in any way a pre-requisite for a self-sustaining Mars colony.

I would claim not - at least some of the biggest problems that we need to solve to create a self-sustaining colony in a harsh environment don't actually need us to be on Mars - there are significant problems we can first address right here on Earth. This is significant because unless and until we can solve these problems, there is no reason to try to establish a base on Mars.

Re: There’s no planet B

#230

Post by phphphphp »

chriswarbo wrote: post #124
phphphphp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk wants there to be a colony on Mars in the near future. As a first step, to prove Mars is liveable. As far as I can recall, he believes that we must be a multi-planetary species to survive which means Earth is destined to die. Space is absolutely a “earth is doomed, we must leave” fantasy for Musk and his acolytes.

> As far as I can recall, he believes that we must be a multi-planetary species to survive which means Earth is destined to die. Yes; in several billion years, e.g. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1482552643343904770 "There is a [100%] chance of all species extinction due to expansion of the sun, unless humanity makes life multiplanetary" Do you disagree with this assessment? Either way, it is irrelevant to the c…

> Yes; in several billion years, e.g: [...]

You just invented the "several billion years" part. I absolutely, unequivocally believe the premise of the article we're discussing, that space-loving billionaires (like Elon Musk) and their acolytes believe that the earth is doomed to failure in the short term and that the only way for humanity to survive is to become multi-planetary. If you think Elon Musk is operating on several billion year time horizons, I have a spaceship to sell you.

Post reply on HN