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

Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 140 posts

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#61

Post by s1artibartfast »

hinkley wrote: post #8
delichon wrote: post #2

> I propose that we all agree to ban all permanent lunar development that is visible with the naked eye from Earth. ...with no proposal to weigh the value of the development against against the value of good taste or nebulously defined compassion. To suppose that no such development with greater value is possible betrays a poverty of imagination. IMHO it is authoritarian to constrain the actions of others on the basi…

If I build an ugly house that affects fifty people. If I build an ugly moon base that affects 8 billion people.

yeah, That is kinda their point. "affect" alone should not be the basis for law or regulation.

Lots of things "affect" others, but that does not generate an entitlement not to be affected. IF I choose to quit a job, that affects my employer. I chose not to date someone, they are affected. Neither of those are reason to restrict my choice.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hinkley wrote: post #16
IncreasePosts wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ugly moon base would need to be how many thousands of square miles to be visible from earth?

I think you’re confusing a NASA base with inhabitation. Inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment. What conversation do you think you’re in? You going to put cemeteries on the moon without people living there? How would that make sense just from the rocket equation?

> inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment

Most cities aren't visible from LEO in the day; none are, day or night, from the Moon with the "naked" eye.

We are centuries from building anything on the Moon visible to the naked eye. And given how often I've seen the shaded part of the Moon in pop culture coloured in with stars, I'm not sure most people would notice the lights from a major lunar city either.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#63

Post by s1artibartfast »

freejazz wrote: post #40
s1artibartfast wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both populate Mars and improve earth? I dont think they are mutually exclusive.

One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.

Sure, but why do you think that matters unless the two are in major competition?

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#64

Post by vacuity »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50
vacuity wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? If your concern is that humans need the latter to live, shouldn't the former be justified too? Is the Earth too doomed for the former to work? I don't follow.

> Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? When we cut down forests for farmland, we're saying our (human) need for that land supercedes the needs of the creatures living on it. That the needs of humans trump those of other living things. (While cute to debate, this isn't ever actually in doubt. Effective arguments for conservation, et cetera , co…

That makes a lot of sense. I acknowledge there is an asymmetry that favors Moon development. I think "while cute to debate philosophically" is itself an amusing stance, given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically, but not the main point. My main gripe is that, if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival, why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table? (If you don't, your motivation is just shallow greed.)

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#65

Post by IncreasePosts »

hinkley wrote: post #16
IncreasePosts wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ugly moon base would need to be how many thousands of square miles to be visible from earth?

I think you’re confusing a NASA base with inhabitation. Inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment. What conversation do you think you’re in? You going to put cemeteries on the moon without people living there? How would that make sense just from the rocket equation?

Considering you can't see any of the "geometric structures, lights, and disturbances of the immediate environment" of the Earth from the moon, I don't really understand how you think humans could possibly do the opposite.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#66

Post by freejazz »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #63
freejazz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.

Sure, but why do you think that matters unless the two are in major competition?

Because one is an urgent need, the other isn't and also presupposes a solution to the first problem. Perhaps you can explain why this doesn't matter.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#67

Post by itishappy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
itishappy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think it would be amazing to visit the stars, but I'm also disappointed that human development currently makes it hard to even see them. My children will be unable to view the Milky Way with their eyes like I have. Is it "hating humanity" to mourn this loss a little, to want to preserve something like it for future generations? It feels a bit like natural parks to me. Of course they contain resources! We…

> Is it "hating humanity" to mourn this loss a little, to want to preserve something like it for future generations? It strikes me as naively presumptuous more than hateful. We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable defintion of those terms. Maybe we figure out what we can do and what's over there before we loop in the space NIMBYs. > it would suck to burry the evidence for abiog…

> We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable definition of those terms.

I don't think we all agree here. The author seems to think that lights would be inappropriate, and Native American tribes have claimed that burials and even human waste desecrates the moon. I'm of a somewhat different mind, I think seeing lights would be neat, but I can't justify blasting the eye off the man-in-the-moon to make it easier to roll the lunar megatrucks in easier.

> What threshold of sureness would you propose for what amount of activity?

Great question. I see this as an argument for cautious incremental progress rather than immediate resource extraction. I'd actually agree that a small human settlement focused on samples and surveys is a logical next step here. We're just so much more efficient than single-purpose robots. I would just urge caution.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#68

Post by s1artibartfast »

vacuity wrote: post #39
s1artibartfast wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both populate Mars and improve earth? I dont think they are mutually exclusive.

I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.

Why do you thinking settling mars would have any impact on our efforts to improve earth?

What are the incentives that are wrong with Mars?

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#69

Post by JumpCrisscross »

freejazz wrote: post #40
s1artibartfast wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both populate Mars and improve earth? I dont think they are mutually exclusive.

One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.

> One of those is actually an urgent need

We're on Hacker News. Divide a population in two, tell one of them what they have to work on and let the other fuck around with whatever they fancy. Tell me you'd have any uncertainty around which will innovate more.

Like sure, it would be great if everyone dropped what they were doing to work on climate change. But we aren't and don't want to. You're never going to convince all of the engineers inspired by going to space to work on a slightly-better solar panel. But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#70

Post by freejazz »

goatlover wrote: post #42
vacuity wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it an act of hatred to say that humans shouldn't expend huge amounts of effort and energy to try to populate Mars so that humans can escape the very human act of polluting the Earth? When this human pollution kills millions a year and plenty of other organisms? Is it a celebration of humanity to continue buying chocolate or clothing or rugs, even if they are clearly the result of exploited or downright slave labor…

Doubt MLK Jr had much to say about Mars colonization. Why would he be opposed to it as long as Martian settlers were treating each other equally? I don't like the view that we shouldn't go to space as long as there are problems on Earth to fix. There are always problems to fix. It's an excuse to never explore space. There's no reason that going to Mars would prevent addressing pollution on Earth. I don't even see how…

> I don't even see how they're related

You can't see how terraforming Mars and solving Earth's climate crisis could be related? And you want us to consider your opinions at all?

Post reply on HN