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

Our Fate Is in the Stars

theamericanscholar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#21

Post by PeterisP »

tomp wrote: post #6
coldtea wrote: post #4

There's no "fate" and no contract we've signed that guaranteers we're an interplanetary species. It's just that we wish we could be in the stars, but wishing doesn't always make it so. And in some cases, wishing never makes it so. Especially without installed bases, big haul ability, etc, it takes trillions and has zero to no returns (except the glory, curiosity, and scientific value) for companies to go to the plane…

Wishes make profit. What is the use of an iPhone beyond satisfying people's wishes? Yet Apple is a $1bn company.

Many people are willing to pay $1000 to satisfy their iPhone wishes. Not many people are willing to pay $1000 so that "we" (i.e. someone else) could be in the stars.

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#22

Post by varjag »

coldtea wrote: post #4

There's no "fate" and no contract we've signed that guaranteers we're an interplanetary species. It's just that we wish we could be in the stars, but wishing doesn't always make it so. And in some cases, wishing never makes it so. Especially without installed bases, big haul ability, etc, it takes trillions and has zero to no returns (except the glory, curiosity, and scientific value) for companies to go to the plane…

This is absolutely not what the article was about.

"If we are staring out into a giant graveyard, it does not augur well for our own future. But if we were to detect advanced life forms elsewhere, it would give us hope that we can find a way out of our own crises."

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#23

Post by TeMPOraL »

monkeynotes wrote: post #19
coldtea wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think natural selection has a point, or the universe cares for us anymore than it cares for bacteria or inanimate matter.

Although, natural selection does have a bias toward propagating and persisting information. Since the information is part of the universe I would say some of the universe exhibits intent. Bacteria is part of the life, inanimate matter became life, life is a vehicle of transmitting and persisting information. To think about 'us' as something other than the universe is a folly. If we care, then part of the universe car…

Propagating, yes. Persisting? Not necessarily - it depends on selection pressures.

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#24

Post by TeMPOraL »

idlewords wrote: post #11
tomp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wishes make profit. What is the use of an iPhone beyond satisfying people's wishes? Yet Apple is a $1bn company.

And yet the iPhone doesn't work on the Moon. Explain that!

[citation needed]

I think there's a good chance it would boot, especially while still within the crew compartment of the lander.

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#25

Post by TeMPOraL »

coldtea wrote: post #15
trevyn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think certain things feel pre-ordained for some, and like an unfolding of human destiny for others, because they are a tangible expression of common, shared human desires. You’re right that economic and other concerns influence the specific timing, but I think the core human drives of growth and exploration are enough to drive us to the stars again in time, even without direct economic incentives.

I think a lot of people get too hyped up by farfetched sci-fi ideas, than actually study the logistics. Some still take the logistics of sending a small crew for a visit at the moon (which are still over the top, and we've still haven't managed to repeat in 50+ years) and wish them away through handwaving to "colonies on Mars" and "colonizing the stars". (Meanwhile we have the far more human friendly oceans, right he…

And then some tackle the logistics problems directly. There's plenty of scientific and semi-scientific literature considering the logistical issues in full; even hard sci-fi pays attention to it. Still, let's not begrudge people from getting inspired by science fiction too much; if people limited themselves to only ever considering the economic gains, the life would be much sadder.

> Meanwhile we have the far more human friendly oceans, right here on Earth, which we haven't colonized yet

Why not both?

Also, I'm not sure the difficulties are 1000x - some of the needs, especially those around closed-loop habitation, are essentially the same; simultaneously, the ocean is a PITA to explore, in a bunch of different but similarly problematic way as space. I'd buy a 10x factor. Ocean exploitation is also hindered by politics and justified fear of environmental damage. In space, there isn't much to damage.

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#26

Post by TeMPOraL »

idlewords wrote: post #10

This is an odd piece of nostalgia, unfortunately representative of a genre. The Apollo program grew directly out of a panic about nuclear weapons, and the technological race to build rockets that could rain those weapons down on an adversary on the other side of the planet. No nuclear bomb, no Apollo. The same geopolitical conflict that produced the space race also gave us the war in Vietnam, which in turn made the e…

> There's also no reason to do it (given advances in robotics and autonomous systems) unless you subscribe to a kind of cultish belief in humanity's manifest destiny to become an interplanetary civilization.

Beyond other reasons given by the pro-colonization crowd, there is a simple reason. It's there, it's within reach, so why not?

> If there had been an intermediate destination between the Moon and Mars for us to work towards after Apollo, things might have gone differently, but you work with the Solar System you're dealt.

And yet people haven't been to the Moon since Apollo, so I feel the problem isn't with the lack of stepping stones.

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#27

Post by TeMPOraL »

idlewords wrote: post #17
martythemaniak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is well understood that history not a nice, neat, little linear progression. It is full of stop and starts, stagnation, dizzying S-curves, revolutions, backlashes and regressions. Apollo was a wonder, yes an outgrowth of the arms race, but also a manifestation of a purposeful and unified nation that just doesn't exist today. It was unsustainable, but it was also very long time ago. I find your views that "things a…

Apollo was not the product of a 'purposeful and unified nation'. The period 1961-1972 was one of the most politically turbulent in American history, to an extent we forget today. Politically motivated bombings were routine news! Apollo was the product of its time in interesting ways, but let's not deceive ourselves about America in 1969 being any more unified and purposeful than it is today. I have nothing against do…

> Better to fund robots at 1/10 of the level of a manned mission, and get to explore the entire solar system instead.

The unfortunate reality is, once people settle for this, the 1/10 will get cut to 1/1000 because "all you do is send robots to dead rocks". Funding science isn't sexy these days.

> If people are dead set on humanity having a 'backup plan', then the Moon is right next door and we can even set it up with wifi.

For some x-risks Moon may be just a bit too close. I understand that the x-risk avoidance argument is a niche one, though. IMO we should absolutely do the Moon - and then Mars or Venus (or both).

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#28

Post by monkeynotes »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #23
monkeynotes wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although, natural selection does have a bias toward propagating and persisting information. Since the information is part of the universe I would say some of the universe exhibits intent. Bacteria is part of the life, inanimate matter became life, life is a vehicle of transmitting and persisting information. To think about 'us' as something other than the universe is a folly. If we care, then part of the universe car…

Propagating, yes. Persisting? Not necessarily - it depends on selection pressures.

Any selection pressure is there to trial the data and persist the useful data. What is considered 'useful'? Well, that's an existential question that is synonymous to `what's the point to life`. I don't have the answer but there does seem to be an intent in the process.

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#29

Post by TeMPOraL »

monkeynotes wrote: post #28
TeMPOraL wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propagating, yes. Persisting? Not necessarily - it depends on selection pressures.

Any selection pressure is there to trial the data and persist the useful data. What is considered 'useful'? Well, that's an existential question that is synonymous to `what's the point to life`. I don't have the answer but there does seem to be an intent in the process.

I disagree. The process viewed at this level is closed over itself - the only criteria for what's useful is "whatever survives". There's no intent here - natural selection only amplifies the structure of the environment in which it happens.

Re: Our Fate Is in the Stars

#30

Post by tshannon »

> "NASA commissioned two studies, with the twist that each team had to flesh out the other’s plan. Making the engineers step into each other’s shoes unstuck the debate, and Huntsville came around to Houston’s approach. That one decision ended up saving billions of dollars."

I love this. I find that so many people get emotionally attached to a decision, simply because it was theirs or their teams.

Post reply on HN