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

111–120 of 140 posts

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

#111

Post by itishappy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #107
itishappy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Fascinating, thanks! The author's standards may be more permissive than expected... We might be able to build whole cities without impacting the view from Earth!

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

#112

Post by vacuity »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #100
vacuity wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dis…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42300388

Last paragraph mainly.

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

#113

Post by vacuity »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #109
vacuity wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42300388

Reposting another of my comments to summarize my thoughts. Mainly read the last paragraph in your case. I think you are too optimistic. It may be the case that environmentalism can't organically get enough mindshare now, and we're waiting on a miracle. But I would say I have a far more balanced view of the situation, especially since mitigating negatives is "pessimistic" by nature, and it is not an agenda I push for so much as something people must either accept or deny.

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

#114

Post by vacuity »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #105
vacuity wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans.

This itself requires explaining too. Axioms can't be justified except by axioms outside of their system, so you're still relying on something to place humans on top. It is something you may agree with, but I am not bound to it for my basic beliefs.

> When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living.

Sure. I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now. I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal?

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

#115

Post by bryanrasmussen »

function_seven wrote: post #47
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #32

There is no far side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, from a cosmic perspective it's pretty nearby. The only thing that makes it look far is that we're so small.

The moon has two sides from our vantage. The near side is the one you see, the far side is the one you don't. It has nothing to do with our distance from the object, just the orientation of that object.

you're probably not familiar with Pink Floyd then.

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

#116

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vacuity wrote: post #112
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 dis…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42300388 Last paragraph mainly.

I may be missing something, but I see zero overlap between space exploration and environmental concerns. They tap into completely different parts of our psyches. The first, exploration, is inherently optimistic. The second, preservation, is inherently risk averse. While there are idiots claiming we'll solve our climate troubles with space, the reality is they're orthogonal pursuits.

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

#117

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vacuity wrote: post #114
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans. This itself requires explaining too. Axioms can't be justified except by axioms outside of their system, so you're still relying on something to place humans on top. It is something you may agree with, but I am not bound to it for my basic beliefs. > When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living. Sure. I am against an…

> you're still relying on something to place humans on top. It is something you may agree with, but I am not bound to it for my basic beliefs

Whatever you bind yourself by, you're doing so as a human. That's my point. At the most meta level, our ethics and value systems are chosen by humans, whether they place humans at the centre of them or not.

> I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now

Sure. Fine. This is common argument, if one I don't see finding purchase in our lifetimes.

> I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal?

Humans means humans. Different sapient beings are irrelevant when we’re discussing a lifeless body.

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

#118

Post by JumpCrisscross »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #9
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…

It's not exactly about personal taste; it's about a kind of spiritual pollution. If we etched a big McDonalds advertisement on the moon, it wouldn't just be in poor taste, but it would irrevocably cheapen (destroy, even) something which has been constant throughout all of humanity's evolution. The moon is particularly important in a cultural sense because it's something shared by everybody. If we bulldozed Mount Fuji…

> If we etched a big McDonalds advertisement on the moon, it wouldn't just be in poor taste

We’re debating a problem outside the capability of human civilisation for the lifespans of everyone alive today.

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

#119

Post by JumpCrisscross »

itishappy wrote: post #72
fsckboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that aesthetic value of preservation exists basically in every choice we make. Or maybe we can stop believing the ancient superstitions that consider us not to be part of nature.

Would you consider NYC as a candidate for a new national park? > National parks are designated for their natural beauty, unique geological features, diverse ecosystems, and recreational opportunities, typically "because of some outstanding scenic feature or natural phenomena." Fits the bill, don't it?

> Would you consider NYC as a candidate for a new national park?

Have you seen our zoning and construction codes? It might actually be simpler to erect a structure in a national park.

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

#120

Post by hinkley »

goatlover wrote: post #55
hinkley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So an massive "ugly city" on the moon is what you meant? I don't think a cemetery on the dark side of the moon will be visible.

That’s the discussion we’re having. Near side vs far side.
Post reply on HN