Live data from Hacker News

More Everything Forever

nytimes.com

91–100 of 321 posts

Re: More Everything Forever

#91

Did this get removed from the home page? As I write this it was posted 2 hours ago with 48 points and 73 comments. Should definitely be on the home page. Why are we filtering content like this?

There's a "controversy filter" that downrates articles with more comments than points.

Re: More Everything Forever

#92
post #67

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." The rest of us can meet up every couple millennia around Alpha Centauri for an old-home week.

That is a much darker tone that I’ve ever thought of that passage in.

On a slightly related note, I think a lot of people today don’t realize when Jesus talked about the “Kingdom of Heaven” many of his audience heard that as a real, physical kingdom which would overthrow Rome. I believe Jesus also believed this, which to me is why Jesus’ dying words (“My God, why have you forsaken me?”) is quite literally an admission that his political project had failed.

Re: More Everything Forever

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think you are under estimating things here. The trip to mars is ~145x longer (at minimum!) than the trip to the moon. Let's say it only takes us twice the time to develop a rocket & ship that can do that (and come back ofc) - so that's 20 years (for 145x the distance). Then you gotta develop structures and building techniques, some of which you can look at with robots, but some of which will need human feedb…

The goal was "get a few humans on Mars". Not the insane goal of "a million in 20 years". Firstly, there's no reason the trip can't be one-way, or at least, temporarily one-way. Secondly, there's not a huge need to develop a new rocket. We've delivered lots of one-way cargo to Mars using the Atlas V; something like the SLS could deliver much more, plenty for a couple humans to get there and not die. We've already laun…

I think you're imagining a limited mission that's pretty far outside the tradition of space travel up 'til today. Consider the public reaction to Apollo 13 or Vladimir Komarov. Certainly, we could deliver a one-way small number of people more quickly, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about (it's certainly not what the article is talking about).

Edit: I suppose I should have said "a few humans [permanently settled] on mars, [able to return whenever they like]" in 100 years.

Re: More Everything Forever

#94

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…

> Yes, of course I support space travel and settling on mars. I expect that,

"of course"? Why? Putting people in space, on the moon, or on Mars seems like a huge waste of resources.

We could have (conservatively) 100 JWST or 1000 Pathfinders for the price of a human mission to Mars.

Re: More Everything Forever

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I misunderstand your comment as if we've run out of ambitious things besides those that border on science fiction. In that case, I think the market is those of us who think there are more tangible ambitious things right in front of our faces. And in front of those with the resources to make a difference ie, fighting starvation, authoritarianism, inequality, disease, genocide. Are these too boring?

No, they're not boring, but they're qualitatively different types of problems. Going to Mars and living forever are primarily technical problems. Starvation, authoritarianism, inequality, and genocide are primarily political problems. The resources and skills used to solved the former set aren't broadly applicable to the latter set, though it is easy to find examples of people who are good at solving one of these set…

I don't agree entirely. They are different types of problems but I think they all can benefit from people who are good at solving technical problems.

Going to Mars isn't a problem or a solution to a current problem. It's just a thing that hasn't been done. I think starvation and disease could use some help from technical people. And considering the damage done by technical people with regard to inequality and authoritarianism, I would hope technical people could also contribute towards fixing the issues. Inevitable mortality is arguably a problem because if solved, would generate a whole other level of problems.

But yeah, political solutions would be amazing and technology is not the answer to everything. At least, that's how I see it.

Re: More Everything Forever

#96
post #94

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…

> Yes, of course I support space travel and settling on mars. I expect that, "of course"? Why? Putting people in space, on the moon, or on Mars seems like a huge waste of resources. We could have (conservatively) 100 JWST or 1000 Pathfinders for the price of a human mission to Mars.

I agree that missions to colonize exoplanets should be low on the priority list per marginal dollar - and also I think we should fund such research because its popular and interesting. We should fund it on the lowest practical level, which probably means establishing a 'starter' base on the moon and a base on mars in the coming centuries.

Re: More Everything Forever

#97
post #63

Colonizing Mars is such a dumb idea. I wish it was a strawman, not the stated goal of the world’s richest man. Anyway, some of the utopian/distopian thinking, I get. We aren’t going to create an AI god, good or evil. That belief is probably a side effect of the facts that Millennials are (finally) grabbing the reins, and we grew up in an era where computers actually got, tangibly, twice as good every 18 months or so,…

> Colonizing Mars is such a dumb idea. A back-of-the-napkin calculation puts humanity's total military expenditure at about $100 trillion (USD adjusted to 2022 $) since 1949. That's not accounting for lives lost, infrastructure destroyed, and all the other negatives that come from war. Humanity is spending unfathomable fortunes just to be able to kill each other. And you're saying colonizing Mars is a dumb idea? Huma…

> You could have levied the same argument against the Apollo program, any of FDR's New Deal megaprojects, the national highway system, the Large Hadron Collider, ITER, etc

All of those had (and always had) far more obvious benefits than colonizing Mars, including the squishy benefit of "beating the Soviet Union to a contested goal."

You can disprove me by stating plainly what the benefits of colonizing Mars would be?

Re: More Everything Forever

#98
post #67

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." The rest of us can meet up every couple millennia around Alpha Centauri for an old-home week.

That is a much darker tone that I’ve ever thought of that passage in. On a slightly related note, I think a lot of people today don’t realize when Jesus talked about the “Kingdom of Heaven” many of his audience heard that as a real, physical kingdom which would overthrow Rome. I believe Jesus also believed this, which to me is why Jesus’ dying words (“My God, why have you forsaken me?”) is quite literally an admissio…

> I believe Jesus also believed this

Jesus predicted his death several times, most explicitly in Matthew 20:17–19.

> Now Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.”

- Matthew 20:17–19

Re: More Everything Forever

#100

Did this get removed from the home page? As I write this it was posted 2 hours ago with 48 points and 73 comments. Should definitely be on the home page. Why are we filtering content like this?

There's a "controversy filter" that downrates articles with more comments than points.

Explains a lot, there's no such thing as substance without controversy.
Post reply on HN