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

A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

littlebrown.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 363 posts

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#311

Post by rdl »

philwelch wrote: post #256
richardjordan wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly I think we squandered that chance. We had one cubic mile of oil. We're half way through it. The rest is being burnt off at record rates. This was a one time energy bounty. We're mining ores with tiny percentages of what we want in them nowadays and at increasing energy cost. We had a bounty of natural resources that we could have focused to get off this planet and become an interplanetary species. I suspect we…

There's no such thing as an interplanetary species, barring some startling developments in physics. At the timescales it takes to travel to other solar systems, populations of colonists would be separated enough to speciate, especially given the radical differences in environment and the genetic drift of the early colony ships anyway.

Wouldn't it be quite feasible for humans even using current tech to go to the Moon, Mars, potentially moons of Jupiter or Saturn, and Venus? That would be interplanetary. Interstellar, perhaps not.

(I agree interplanetary would do a lot better with plausible tech of the next 50-100 years, but there's no reason not to get started today. Thank you, Elon Musk!)

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#312

Post by cpeterso »

swombat wrote: post #182
limmeau wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you recommend as a first book to read? (edit: never mind, sibling thread has it covered: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5485695 )

If you LOVE science fiction already, I'd go straight for the jugular and start with Excession. It's hardcore, it's full of awesome technology, it will blow your mind and forever seduce you into the world of the Culture. If you're just a normal science fiction fan, start with Use of Weapons. It's complex and sci-fi-ish enough, but not as hardcore as Excession. The plot is amazing. To me it is one of the most memorable…

Thanks for the recommendations. I just finished The Player of Games and was about to start Consider Phlebas. Now I'll have to consider whether to tackle Excession or Use of Weapons instead.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#313

Post by philwelch »

rdl wrote: post #311
philwelch wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as an interplanetary species, barring some startling developments in physics. At the timescales it takes to travel to other solar systems, populations of colonists would be separated enough to speciate, especially given the radical differences in environment and the genetic drift of the early colony ships anyway.

Wouldn't it be quite feasible for humans even using current tech to go to the Moon, Mars, potentially moons of Jupiter or Saturn, and Venus? That would be interplanetary. Inter stellar , perhaps not. (I agree interplanetary would do a lot better with plausible tech of the next 50-100 years, but there's no reason not to get started today. Thank you, Elon Musk!)

Maybe, but wouldn't the same issues apply? After all, you still wouldn't have people going from planet to planet often enough for there to be much interbreeding. In any case, colonizing the rest of the solar system is fairly pointless since there aren't any other habitable planets.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#314

Post by rdl »

philwelch wrote: post #313
rdl wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be quite feasible for humans even using current tech to go to the Moon, Mars, potentially moons of Jupiter or Saturn, and Venus? That would be interplanetary. Inter stellar , perhaps not. (I agree interplanetary would do a lot better with plausible tech of the next 50-100 years, but there's no reason not to get started today. Thank you, Elon Musk!)

Maybe, but wouldn't the same issues apply? After all, you still wouldn't have people going from planet to planet often enough for there to be much interbreeding. In any case, colonizing the rest of the solar system is fairly pointless since there aren't any other habitable planets.

To seriously colonize other planets would presumably mean we've solved the LEO lift problem (elevator? even easier on Mars, the Moon, etc.), have some nuclear-powered shuttles running around the planets, etc. At that point I think there would be at least as much contact between worlds as between continents in the 1500s. It might be largely one-way (Earth to Colonies), though.

Shipping reproductive material (either as information, or embryos, or frozen eggs/sperm) would also be fairly realistic.

The main reasons I can see for colonizing other planets are political (Earth is dominated by a certain kind of nation state, I'd happily live in a remote part of Earth if it would get me out from under that, as long as the right 5k people went with me...), or the spiritual/moral/whatever drive to do it because it can be done.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#315

Post by intended »

xenophanes wrote: post #258
michaelochurch wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, that's my exact point. I didn't say that they make $125k (that's about average for a half-decent VC-istan programmer) because I knew scientific salaries to be low (I'm surprised to hear that they're that low) and they shouldn't be. Those salaries should be at least 3 times higher. You should make more working on scientific research that helps everyone than you'd make ($100-150k for typical programmers) writing y…

> Those salaries should be at least 3 times higher. Why? What about supply and demand? Do you mean salaries shouldn't be determined by supply and demand, or demand "should" be higher? If demand for these skills should be higher, but isn't, that is an opportunity for entrepreneurs. Your or anyone else, if correct, could make a killing using these skills at low prices (salaries). The more people who do that, the more t…

Demand for a cure to hair loss is high, and billions more will be spent on it, than will be on a cure for malaria or other diseases where the sufferers can ill afford the cost.

Market forces are better than previous systems at allocating resources, but they aren't infallible.

As someone has pointed out, theres a difference between price and value.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#316

Post by intended »

swombat wrote: post #182
limmeau wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you recommend as a first book to read? (edit: never mind, sibling thread has it covered: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5485695 )

If you LOVE science fiction already, I'd go straight for the jugular and start with Excession. It's hardcore, it's full of awesome technology, it will blow your mind and forever seduce you into the world of the Culture. If you're just a normal science fiction fan, start with Use of Weapons. It's complex and sci-fi-ish enough, but not as hardcore as Excession. The plot is amazing. To me it is one of the most memorable…

Funnily though, I started with consider Phelbas, and it was good enough to keep me involved, the ending and the emotion it dripped has made me think about it in a different way, and far more than any of the other books, except maybe Use of Weapons.

Excession was quite a flourish, and deliciously fun.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#317

Post by MrBra »

MrBra wrote: post #149
Nursie wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err.... no. It's more prevalent in some societies because we live longer and we don't any longer die of preventable infections. Our air is cleaner than it's been for a long time. Decent nutrition has never been cheaper or more widely available. Life expectancy has never been longer. We are not killing ourselves. OK so some are by overeating and doing no exercise, but in general you're talking nonsense.

and we've never ate so many chemical food preservatives, taste modifiers, colourants like we're eating now. we've never been exposed to so much radiations like we are now. mobile phones being the first source. and the list goes on. we definitely are doing something to ourselves.

and yes i forgot sugar and lifestyle

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#318

Post by dinkumthinkum »

bluetshirt wrote: post #190
engtech wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, more money is needed. 41% of deaths are due to cancer. It really is one of the biggest problems we have as a species and we should spend more effort on it rather than the things we do spend effort on. But I wholeheartedly agree that rather than trying to be a billg and earn money to fund philanthropy, the world needs more researchers.

People are going to die. If it's not cancer, it'll be heart failure. I'm not convinced that what this world needs is research into keeping sick people alive longer. We have lots of people as it is.

I know in this kind of nerdy community of which I am a part, this might be considered to be a hip statement or "logical" or some such nonsense. But I am going to just be honest and say if that is your view, you're a horrible person. That's just such garbage.

EDIT - I had a little time to think about your statement a little. Your statements are basically just ridiculous venom. In any other venue, it would be met with the vitriol it really deserves but I just find this to be essentially inhuman.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#319

Post by deadairspace »

engtech wrote: post #159
StavrosK wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which Banks book should I start with? I was going to start with the Player of Games after your comment, but it turns out it's part of a series, and Consider Phlebas is the first one. Does it matter?

Actually, don't start with the books. Read this webpage to get an introduction to the Culture. It's great, and it helps you get through some of the "rougher" edges in the earlier books. http://nuwen.net/culture.html

Thanks! That was really well-written.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#320

Post by lsparrish »

polyfractal wrote: post #299
nawitus wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hmm...except that cryopreservation is still, as of this point, a complete crock of shit. Trying to find a necromancer would be more productive. No, that's not very rational. Cryopreservation may have low chances of success, but it's like a billion billion billion times better than just dying (which has zero chance of success). Nobody is claiming that cryopreservation is very probable, but it's a lot better than noth…

>No, that's not very rational. Cryopreservation may have low chances of success, but it's like a billion billion billion times better than just dying (which has zero chance of success). Nobody is claiming that cryopreservation is very probable, but it's a lot better than nothing. Ok, I'll give you that there is a non-zero chance. Other's have touched upon that in this thread, and I would contend that giving 200k to s…

> There is exactly zero evidence that a brain/mind is functional without it's body.

My understanding is that head transplants actually have been done in mammals with retention of consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_transplant

So no, I wouldn't say "exactly zero evidence".

> Ok, I'll give you that there is a non-zero chance. Other's have touched upon that in this thread, and I would contend that giving 200k to some family/friend is more useful than throwing it away, but it's your money. If you are happy with a negligible-but-non-zero chance, go for it.

I basically agree that there's a minimal standard of evidence for cryonics working that is required for it to be worth more to an individual than giving the $200k to family and friends. However, it is not clear whether cryonics-as-it-exists exceeds that mark or not. I would think it does. Estimate $5M per life, and chances in the 1-10% range are reasonable for the cost.

>> Nobody will be thawing brains using 21st century technology.

> Bit of a cop-out, no?

Not really. There are things we can justifiably think are possible but too technically difficult to accomplish in the very near term. Comprehensively curing cancer for example. It's going to happen, but it will take a while. Likewise, machine-phase nanotech that can operate at very low temperatures to perform subtle manipulations on vitreous biological materials which improve its ability to support itself during rewarming.

The thing is, when you rewarm cells in the lab after freezing them, they incur damage during rewarming. For example, if the vitrification point is below the freezing point, that means ice will try to form if it has a chance to during rewarming. In situations where extracellular ice exists, it will melt during rewarming and thus cause osmotic shock to the dehydrated cell.

In the concentrated solute version of vitrification like we see in cryonics, the concern is more that the concentrated solutes will interact with proteins when they get warm enough to do so. That can denature them and trigger autolysis. So prior to rewarming, picture a machine-phase manipulation that digs in and gently pulls out chunks of toxic cryoprotectant, and replaces them with something more benign for the thawing process. It could also add drugs that haven't been invented yet, e.g. a comprehensive autolysis blocker, or improved ice blocker that lets you replace some of the vitrificant with water and still take your time rewarming.

That's not getting into nano-repair, which is complex enough that I would concede it could be implausible (though I don't exactly think it needs to be ruled out at this point).

Post reply on HN