261–270 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it would be. But that doesn't matter if no humans make it through the apocalypse in the first place.
The moon would do the job at a lot cheaper price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's crazy to say. mars is very cold and very dry and not shielded from radiation and doesn't have much air and that air isn't breathable. i wouldn't say we've settled antarctica, which is on our planet and has air. 100 years would be a wild amount of time for us to settle mars.
We purposefully decided not to settle there socially, yet we have settled there permanently with research and military stations. Just as we will with Mars. And yes we grow things there, even if just green onions and herbs. Not to mention the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by. 100 years is beyond pessimistic. We could easily have settled Mars with 1970s tech.
times a few orders of magnitude and this is the main reason to doubt a settled Mars colony.
Possibly a research outpost, but why would that be staffed by humans rather than robots?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source for any of those claims? It's pretty well known after a few weird political fights that she grew up in a tiny house in Yorktown and that her dad died when she was a freshman in college and that her mom was a house cleaner. [her childhood home: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhCMERUXUAAY68Z?format=jpg&name=... ]. Hard to square with her family "owning multiple brownstones". Trump's dad gave him millions of dollars…
Here's the New York Posts' investigation: https://nypost.com/2019/02/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-no... The actual land records that prove this are impossible to link, for reasons that are charitably described as "Monstrous incompetence of government officials".
This article talks about her dad's Bronx condo that she lived in, or claimed to live in. No offense to the people of the Bronx, but that is not a "rich" part of NYC. Units for sale in the building mentioned are rather cheap for NYC, in fact.
I am surprised this obviously correct take is so controversial! The problem, essentially, is that the "more everything forever" crowd wants to get paid for the idea of the future today and then will never actually deliver what they promise. They are selling snake oil for the new millennium. Yes, of course I support space travel and settling on mars. I expect that, if we doubled or tripled NASA's budget, we could get…
Doubled or tripled NASA's budget? NASA has spent 32 BILLION on SLS with nothing to show for it. Each launch is expected to cost 2.5 BILLION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System . Starship is just orders of magnitude less than this. NASA is a moribund jobs program.
For another, this hypothetical spacecraft (which does not yet exist) would not be wherever it is in terms of completion had NASA not existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Zeroly, there's absolutely 0 reason for people to go to Mars, AT ALL. This whole idea is the stupidest thing I've heard people seriously discuss. What would be the point? If you want to experience "life on Mars", bury a cargo container in your back yard, and live in it for a year. If there's some burning need to go live underground, as you would on Mars, why not just do it in Nevada? The grocery store is a lot cl…
And Zeroly, there's absolutely 0 reason for people to go west, AT ALL - Portugal, 1490
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a deadly childhood cancer, Retinoblastoma, which would have killed me without modern medicine. I'm pretty fond of existing. These developments sure altered my humanity. By making it possible.
Modern medicine saved my life as well. It seems like splitting hairs, but changing _who_ one is is different from changing _that_ one is. My point is that technology isn't going to do anything to alter the core human experience: envy, passion, jealousy, gratitude, love, etc... aren't mutable in the way that rationalists or transhumanists would have us believe.
Also I'm not sure where Rationalists or transhumanists said "it would be cool to live way longer" and you read "get rid of love." That seems like a weird failure of your own imagination. You can't have love if you're dead, so the transhumanists want you to live longer and... experience more love!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doubled or tripled NASA's budget? NASA has spent 32 BILLION on SLS with nothing to show for it. Each launch is expected to cost 2.5 BILLION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System . Starship is just orders of magnitude less than this. NASA is a moribund jobs program.
For one, where is Starship and when did it last launch? For another, this hypothetical spacecraft (which does not yet exist) would not be wherever it is in terms of completion had NASA not existed.
It is obviously true that technology allows us to modify nature to an ever greater extent. That is what technology is! I don't think we'll have a colony on mars anytime soon, but AI is obviously coming and will obviously be extremely disrupting (for better or for worse)
> It is obviously true that technology allows us to modify nature to an ever greater extent I would dispute the relative significance or meaning of those changes though. We can build dams and tall buildings. We can cure diseases and develop elaborate communications infrastructure. I don't see that these developments alter our essential humanity though. If you read any classic literature from 100, 200, or even 1000 ye…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We purposefully decided not to settle there socially, yet we have settled there permanently with research and military stations. Just as we will with Mars. And yes we grow things there, even if just green onions and herbs. Not to mention the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by. 100 years is beyond pessimistic. We could easily have settled Mars with 1970s tech.
> the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by. times a few orders of magnitude and this is the main reason to doubt a settled Mars colony. Possibly a research outpost, but why would that be staffed by humans rather than robots?
Yet Mars is a new frontier, and endless, massive numbers of humans would go to Mars in a heartbeat.
Frankly, settlers travelling to the new world in the 1400s faced a far more dangerous journey and living conditions than a trip to Mars.
We're talking first explorers here, so many died on boats, of starvation the first year, on and on.
Modern tech does not remove said risk, but it tips the playing field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stuart Russell and Geoffrey Hinton have both expressed concerns that AI could lead to human extinction and neither are nutjobs
I wasn't explicitly referring to the more "sane" people expressing doubts regarding Ai. Hinton at least says that other issues in Ai should be dealt with, rather than just being an Ai doomer who only fears Ai takeover he actually realizes that there are other current issues as well At this point, how many times should we have been dead for eliezer?