Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by itishappy » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:01 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

itishappy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-i…

> author seems to think that lights would be inappropriate If they're "visible with the naked eye from Earth." From what we can tell, no lights on Earth are visible from the Moon. So sure, when MGM is developing the Luxor Mare Imbrium, we can talk. > Native American tribes have claimed that burials and even human waste desecrates the moon With all due respect to the Navajo Nation, I'm putting this one the wrong side…

> From what we can tell, no lights on Earth are visible from the Moon.

Wait, really? That's surprising to me!

> With all due respect to the Navajo Nation, I'm putting this one the wrong side of reasonable.

Totally fair, and I tend to agree. My point is that not everyone does. I'm sure there's reasonable compromise. To bring it back to my earlier example, we do actually mine national parks (at least the UK does), we're just careful with our approach. I hope this type of approach would suit the author.

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

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

#82

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:02 PM UTC

vacuity wrote: post #78

s1artibartfast wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My belief is that many people will think "Oh good! A safe harbor where we can fix our mistakes!" My problems with this: 1) Is everyone going to Mars in a reasonable time frame, or are people going to be left behind? Permanently? 2) Are we actually going to fix the Earth? Let's assume many people will be there for a while longer. 3) Are we going to not wreck Mars?

#1 That is an extremely dumb thought to project on everyone else. Mars isn't an a replacement for earth, and wont support even a tiny fraction of the population in the foreseeable future. Why do you believe people will think this?

#2 I hope we fix earth, but we either will or wont completely independent of Mars policy. Again, I dont see how they are related. Is the idea to prevent Mars activity as a motivating punishment (e.g. Birthday parties are cancelled until you clean your room)?

#3 What does "wrecking Mars" mean? What is a good Mars and what is a bad Mars?

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

#83

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:04 PM UTC

vacuity wrote: post #17

WalterBright wrote: post #12

> so why not agree to leave it unmarred by any obvious act of humanity, forevermore? How some people hate humanity. Personally, I'd love to see the lights from a lunar colony on the moon. This reminds me of the people who don't want to "pollute" Mars. Sheesh, it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute. It could desperately use people on it, just like the moon. The solar system is ours, and we can and should…

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…

I don't see where you inferred these questions from my statement.

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

#84

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:04 PM UTC

vacuity wrote: post #64

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

> given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically

My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics.

> if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival

I don't. To the extent there's a contender for necessary for human survival, it's farmland. This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.

> why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table?

One, it's literally easier to colonise the Moon than do this on a global scale. Two, because that's a separate topic.

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

#85

Post by vacuity » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:04 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #76

vacuity wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if humans will not needlessly harm any sapient life, I think there would be a lot less reasonable complaints around. Whether on Mars or on Earth, let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest and "might makes right". Sounds to me like we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?

> let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest That it's irrelevant to this conversation? Conquest means conquering. To conquer means to take possession of a foreign land by force [1]. There are no Moon Men our rovers are waging war with. Lunar colonisation is manifest destiny in the way my dog peeing on a fence post is. (Practically speaking, less so.) > we'll have an acceptabl…

> Conquest means conquering.

I'm aware. I see it as analogous, though. Clearly many people would feel entitled to Mars whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from. The narrative feels the same: "we could do it and there's nothing wrong in doing it, so we did it and no one can complain". I only have further objections if there are pre-existing beings involved.

> Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point.

You seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine. Let's say I agree to that (which I don't, above). To take it to its logical conclusion, you and I seem to agree that harming (sapient) life needlessly is bad. I pointed out that humans are, uh, bad at following that rule. True, that doesn't indict Mars colonization specifically. Also true, I have a bone to pick with how humans do things in general, which I think is even more pertinent. But we were already on the general-human-things tack by dicussing manifest destiny.

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

#86

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:05 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #20

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…

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

I did not suggest otherwise.

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

#87

Post by freejazz » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:07 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #73

freejazz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dont see that way at all. Space exploration in no way hampers or restricts our ability to improve earth. The two can be done in parallel. Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?

I didn't say they couldn't be done in parallel.

>Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?

No, I'm not sure how that follows at all.

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

#88

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:08 PM UTC

jfactorial wrote: post #71

WalterBright wrote: post #12

> so why not agree to leave it unmarred by any obvious act of humanity, forevermore? How some people hate humanity. Personally, I'd love to see the lights from a lunar colony on the moon. This reminds me of the people who don't want to "pollute" Mars. Sheesh, it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute. It could desperately use people on it, just like the moon. The solar system is ours, and we can and should…

I don't hate humanity but I'm firmly on the side that says the lit side of the moon should be left untouched from here on out. The night sky belongs to all of Earth's inhabitants. None of us has any right to decorate the moon anymore than a technocrat with the means could claim the right to make all the oceans glow. If we do allow building on the lit lunar surface though, props to the first telescope company to build…

> I'm firmly on the side that says the lit side of the moon should be left untouched from here on out

I'm firmly opposed to your proposal. Having lit cities on the moon does not impinge in any way life on earth.

Are you also firmly opposed to airplanes?

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

#89

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:08 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #86

s1artibartfast wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I did not suggest otherwise.

I was responding to vacuity, not you. They hold the position that Mars activities should not take place until we fix earth, if ever.

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

#90

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 8:11 PM UTC

vacuity wrote: post #85

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest That it's irrelevant to this conversation? Conquest means conquering. To conquer means to take possession of a foreign land by force [1]. There are no Moon Men our rovers are waging war with. Lunar colonisation is manifest destiny in the way my dog peeing on a fence post is. (Practically speaking, less so.) > we'll have an acceptabl…

> Conquest means conquering. I'm aware. I see it as analogous, though. Clearly many people would feel entitled to Mars whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from. The narrative feels the same: "we could do it and there's nothing wrong in doing it, so we did it and no one can complain". I only have further objections if there are pre-existing beings involved. > Making nonsense arguments doesn't…

> whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from

Maybe, maybe not. I question the relevance of a moot hypothetical.

> seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine

I'm saying if there is nothing living--let alone sapient--is harmed, it's not analogous to Manifest Destiny in a fundamental way. We have no cultural memory of colonising terra nova. So we're analogising to conquest, which I'm arguing is reductive.

This is closer to the first people to leave the African continent. Or first humans to get on boats and colonise North America and the Pacific Islands. Something motivated those people into the unknown, and while an element of that is preserved in Manifest Destiny, it's--I'd argue--in a corrupted form.