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

91–100 of 140 posts

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

#91

Post by vacuity »

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?

> in no way hampers or restricts

Except for the logistics, such as funding, brain drain, social attention/PR. Frankly, I don't think we could "improve Earth" effectively without major restructuring of power, resources, social attitudes, etc., even if massive amounts of resources were thrown at it. People would rather work on space exploration because it's more exciting and hopeful.

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

#92

Post by WalterBright »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
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…

> it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute I used to share this view until I read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars . There is aesthetic value to preserving Mars in its pristine form, within reason, if only so future generations can enjoy it. That doesn't mean full space NIMBY, as this article suggets. But it does argue against being cavalier about an alien landscape simply because it's lifeless.

Terran life is not a stain that must be confined to Earth. We may be the only life in the universe.

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

#93

Post by s1artibartfast »

freejazz wrote: post #87
s1artibartfast wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I asked why not do both, and you responded that "One of those is actually an urgent need".

If you arent arguing against doing them in parallel, what point are you trying to make.

If you agree they can both be done in parallel, and dont think we should wait, what is your objection?

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

#94

Post by happytoexplain »

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…

You start off implying support for the idea of "weighing the value of the development against against the value of good taste", but then your second paragraph seems to imply the opposite extreme: That there can be no case (or vanishingly few) where we can justify the restriction of the destruction of nature/geography if it is purely aesthetic.

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

#95

Post by vacuity »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69
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.

> 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…

> But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space.

That "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd. One of the bigger, more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything. I consider it wishful thinking.

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

#96

Post by s1artibartfast »

vacuity wrote: post #91
s1artibartfast wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> in no way hampers or restricts Except for the logistics, such as funding, brain drain, social attention/PR. Frankly, I don't think we could "improve Earth" effectively without major restructuring of power, resources, social attitudes, etc., even if massive amounts of resources were thrown at it. People would rather work on space exploration because it's more exciting and hopeful.

This is classic zero sum thinking. A dollar more for space is not a dollar less for the environment, and one more aerospace engineer is not one less environmentalist.

You might as well argue for a global ban on dancing or fun because it is a distraction from improving the earth.

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

#97

Post by erik_seaberg »

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…

Escaping pollution is not a reason for going. Creating habitable areas on/under Mars is clearly harder than maintaining habitable areas on/under Earth. We have people who are much more motivated to do it and we might learn more from it, though.

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

#98

Post by vacuity »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #82
vacuity wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 punish…

To 3, I'll vaguely say "like how we are wrecking the Earth". To 1 and 2, I think you have a far more optimistic view of the technical and social aspects of this issue than I do. Dangerously so. Enough people look at Musk and others talking about Mars, or "believe in the technological revolution", or don't care about the Earth, that fixing the issues on Earth is a very urgent matter with not enough mindshare.

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

#99

Post by vacuity »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #96
vacuity wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in no way hampers or restricts Except for the logistics, such as funding, brain drain, social attention/PR. Frankly, I don't think we could "improve Earth" effectively without major restructuring of power, resources, social attitudes, etc., even if massive amounts of resources were thrown at it. People would rather work on space exploration because it's more exciting and hopeful.

This is classic zero sum thinking. A dollar more for space is not a dollar less for the environment, and one more aerospace engineer is not one less environmentalist. You might as well argue for a global ban on dancing or fun because it is a distraction from improving the earth.

So are you saying that when random billionaire #38 puts in $5 million to space ventures, they're willing to also give $5 million to the environment? Although just throwing money at the environmental issues is a lot less effective than powerful people, like probably those billionaires, reforming industrial practices and whatnot. Like eliminating disposable plastic bags. Positive-sum games aren't always accurate either. The issue with always-upward economic and technological thinking is that, if (when?) the bubble bursts, we realize that growth can't come out of nowhere. Even if it's just a matter of psychological motivation and not money, it turns out that people can't just focus on twenty causes effectively.

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

#100

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vacuity wrote: post #95
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space. That "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd. One of the bigger, more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything. I consider it wishful thinking.

> "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd

Not really something you have to hypothesise about. Cordless tools, water-purification technologies, integrated circuits and all manner of imaging, navigation and battery technologies came out of the Apollo programme.

> more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything

Irrelevant to proving or disproving mutual exclusivity between "populat[ing] Mars and improv[ing] earth."

(Also, wrong. The Outer Space Treaty and failed Moon Treaty inspired significant portions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, including the assertion that the seabed is the common heritage of mankind.)

Post reply on HN