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

101–110 of 140 posts

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

#101

Post by s1artibartfast »

Miraste wrote: post #34
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…

How far would you take this? That rhetoric taken to its conclusion leads to travesties like destroying national parks to install oil wells and strip malls, a net negative for 99.999999% of humanity.

The limiting principle is ownership IMO.

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

#102

Post by vacuity »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84
vacuity wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

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

After which you take it as given that humans come first even metaethically? You can't from-first-principles your way around it; even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis. It's obviously the same with me, and not a matter of right or wrong, but not acknowledging it is wrong.

> This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.

I addressed this in my last sentence. So then ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part. Again, I'm utimately going off of aesthetics too. It's just that you should recognize that, and not make arguments that revolve around not recognizing it.

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

#103

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vacuity wrote: post #99
s1artibartfast wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> when random billionaire #38 puts in $5 million to space ventures, they're willing to also give $5 million to the environment

It was never going to the environment. It was going into space ventures or into some consumer play. There is practically zero competition between space and environmental concerns. (To the extent environmental concerns compete for resources, it's with discretionary social services. Similar donor bases. Similar line items in most national budgets.)

The engineers working on rockets wouldn't pivot to environmental sciences if we closed off space. Some would go to defence. Most would go to random other areas, likely those that pay well, like finance and that consumer play the aforementioned billionaire funded.

> people can't just focus on twenty causes effectively

We're investing more into crypto than we are into space.

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

#104

Post by s1artibartfast »

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…

I generally agree, but dont think there is anything wrong with being authoritarian over ones own property.

I wouldnt accept the irrelevance of taste and beauty if someone were putting a poster on my wall.

This becomes more tricky when you consider community owned property.

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

#105

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vacuity wrote: post #102
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 no…

> My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics. After which you take it as given that humans come first even metaethically? You can't from-first-principles your way around it; even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis. It's obviously the same with me, and not a matter of right or wrong, but not acknowledging it is wrong. > This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about a…

> even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis

Sure. But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans. Not acknowledging that is naïve.

> ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part

How do you define human privilege?

When I've seen the term, it's been framed against non-human life. It thus doesn't make sense to assert human privilege against non-living entities. When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living. (Or more accurately, of the sentient. Those with agency.)

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

#106

Post by WalterBright »

jfactorial wrote: post #79
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…

> When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people I think the key distinction in this discussion is your view that the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people.

Belonging to all people means the Tragedy of the Commons.

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

#107

Post by JumpCrisscross »

itishappy wrote: post #81
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'r…

> Wait, really? That's surprising to me!

Yup [1]! (To put it in context, Earthlight on the Moon [apparent magnitude -17.7] is brighter than the full Moon on Earth [-11s]. Maybe during a lunar eclipse?)

[1] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/38922/could-apollo...

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

#108

Post by WalterBright »

skibz wrote: post #23
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 think a more charitable interpretation of the suggestion you're quoting would be the opposite: how some people love nature . As for Mars, suggesting that it is merely a "dead rock" with "no environment" grossly oversimplifies its geology. It's a seismically active planet with an atmosphere.

A dead rock means no life.

> It's a seismically active planet with an atmosphere.

It's still a dead rock. There's nothing sacred about it.

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

#109

Post by s1artibartfast »

vacuity wrote: post #98
s1artibartfast wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#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.

waging war and trying to destroy people's hopes and dreams is a cynical, toxic, failing strategy for environmentalism.

It communicates that environmentalism cant maintain mindshare based on its own merit, and must obstruct and tear down other goals. Unfortunately, this alienates anyone one who holds values on par with environmentalism.

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

#110

Post by vacuity »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #97
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…

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.

Granted, I overstated the escaping pollution part. It seems like people are not alarmed enough about climate change and pollution to believe extinction[0] will happen anytime soon. That would mainly be the motivation for rich people, and not just pollution but many other issues they are not interested in solving.

Frankly, the least selfish reason to go to Mars is to avoid extinction. Barring that, is it such a great thing for "humanity" to explore Mars for curiosity, commercial ventures, and leisure? Apparently many of the commenters here seem to extol things that can be great for "humanity" while lashing out at mentions of real issues not getting enough attention right now. I'll restate what I said: is it so important that we with privilege continue to have greater privilege? Or if you believe we can just fix these issues and get our space exploration too: do you really think that will happen with reasonable likelihood? The feel-good narrative of having our cake and eating it too is just too delectable.

And to those of you saying I would shut down everything for one cause, you're blatantly wrong. I'm saying we should focus on this cause and look to the remainder for things like space exploration. What we have in reality is focusing on things like space exploration and hoping. We are misallocating resources. Yes, perhaps we will get magical technology from the money currently going into it, or from space exploration. I ask you if you think the likelihood is reasonable. If you're here to talk about mere possibilities, don't complain when others bring up feasibility.

[0] Or just a lot of people dying, doesn't have to be nearly everyone.

Post reply on HN