Yesterday I talked at an "International Space Development Conference" on interstellar colonization, alongside Air Force futurist Peter Garretson and polymath, L5 cofounder, and Scientology-thorn Keith Henson
Has anyone compared the difficulty of terraforming Mars versus colonizing Antarctica and the oceans? How exactly might you colonize Antarctica and the oceans? I'm looking for some analogue of Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars."
Hehe. Yes, there are definitely other problems to be addressed. But going into space helps with some of them. It also nicely "diversifies" the human "portfolio".
BTW, I highly doubt it will be possible to stop AI and nanotech from developing. Ultimately, machines or biomachines will take over. The question is how human-like those machines will be.
"deep mine colonies would better protect humanity from extinction"
This is probably true---in the short run. But it is unclear how long people can survive in deep mines. They need energy and resources, and if the surface of the planet is contaminated and cloudy through environmental, nuclear, and biological disaster, it may prove infeasible for people to survive very long in deep mines. Those lucky enough to survive a nuclear holocaust, for example, might just starve off after 50 years.
In the long term, going into space may be the only way to ensure human survival. Right now, at least, we have the economies of scale needed to make such a thing practical, and so it would seem like a shame not to take advantage of the moment.
I am inclined to agree - I don't believe space travel will be an effective way to minimize our existential risk in the next century, and frankly that's my only serious concern.
The one exception that might apply to that rule is global warming mitigation via a space-based shield (eg Roger Angel's proposal).
The space elevator is a non-starter; look at other launch megastructures.
Unknown,I'd prefer to live here, on the surface, until deep mine colonies have been around for a while (maybe a few hundred years?) on Earth and Mars. Then, I'd probably want to live in the most secure one here on Earth. I do give priority to my personal survival. I care about the survival of the human race to the the degree that it maximizes my personal survival odds. If the rest of you were to blip out of existence tomorrow, it seems to me that my persistence odds would be fatally compromised.
Just out of curiosity... how much now to send data (eg. genomes + culture) out of reach of hungry goo and dying suns, and preserved for 10^10 years for tardy alien discovery? How about cryopreserved brains, after nanotech but before singularity?
I just want to voice strong support for BOTH deep mine colonies on Earth and on nearby planets/moons. It seems to me to be a very reasonable hedge against disaster, and I think we can afford the efficiency costs of doing so. Ballparking it, I think our goal should be 10% of the productive population living in sealed mine shafts throughout Earth, and 5% of the productive population living in similar environments on Mars and elsewhere. Realistically for Mars this would involve mostly transporting embryos rather than adult humans. It's a silly luxury for nearly all of us to be living on the Earth's surface.
I have similar concerns about monoculture. I'd like to see time capsuled human population (wouldn't have to be mine shafted) with no outside contact with the rest of us, and scheduled for release after various amount of time of isolation (from 1 generation to 1,000+ years), to keep fresh encounters with differently developed human cultures as part of our experience and opportunities for epiphanies.
I just want to back Tim up - NASA's budget is tiny, not just compared to the NIH or the NSF. Consider that the total 2007 budget is about $1.7T, so all three together are still less than 3%! If you want to complain about government expenditures, look at the debt interest, or at the military. Playing around with the pennies at NASA is silly.
Also, you should remove the bias in your URL filter - a .ca domain is not "invalid". Overcome your .com bias!
This sounds like something I've been saying for a while. I first understood it from a gentleman on rec.arts.sf.science (Frank Palmer, I believe)
When I first read it, my first impulse for one shameful instant was to contradict him with some notion of The High Frontier / O'Neill / Colonies in Space, but a moment's reflection convinced me it was absolutely true.The desert, the oceans, the polar regions are all hospitable compared to space. They have air, and more reasonable temperatures, and no real radiation hazard, and you can get to them far more easily. Both the desert and space lack water, but getting water to the desert is a lot easier than getting it to space.
Perhaps the appeal of space colonization is that, because space colonization is mostly fictional, we (science fiction buffs at least) associate it with a lot of appealing things that don't logically follow.
The solar power satellite idea, however, doesn't seem crazy to me.Two things space has going for it is a bright, steady solar energy supply and a lot of room. Won't work if it needs much human maintenance, though.
Not so the idea of saving humanity from asteroid death by moving a part of earth's population into space. For the foreseeable future, there is exactly zero chance of being able to save humanity in this manner. We're able to put a few people in space, but they need to be constantly resupplied from earth. If an asteroid wipes us out, they'd die too, just a few weeks later. Those who give this as a reason for manned space exploration need to explain how they think orbiting the ISS right now (or another moon mission, or the mars mission) has any positive effect on our far-future ability to do this. (And the explanation can't be just a series of steps and saying "Now we're at step one")
One more thing: If anything, the case for manned space exploration has gotten weaker as computers and robots have improved. When we sent men to the moon 1970-ish, we really had to send people in order to collect interesting samples and do other things we wanted. The Surveyors sent back pictures, did some experiments that didn't need any set-up, and that was about the best one could hope for from a machine.
Now that's no longer so, and Moore's law makes it less so all the time.
Re: "The argument I keep hearing for space exploration is that we need to get off Earth in case something horrible happens"We also need to be able to protect the Earth against big rocks - and put sensors and transmitters into orbit.
Has anyone compared the difficulty of terraforming Mars versus colonizing Antarctica and the oceans? How exactly might you colonize Antarctica and the oceans? I'm looking for some analogue of Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars."
Hehe. Yes, there are definitely other problems to be addressed. But going into space helps with some of them. It also nicely "diversifies" the human "portfolio".
BTW, I highly doubt it will be possible to stop AI and nanotech from developing. Ultimately, machines or biomachines will take over. The question is how human-like those machines will be.
That's fight to prevent it. I'm not suggesting we brace ourselves to battle superminds packing nanotech :)
Joe: going into space may be the only way to ensure human survival.
It won't. A few existential risks might still get you, and unfriendly AI will still get you.
We must stand and fight. Running away is not an option.
"deep mine colonies would better protect humanity from extinction"
This is probably true---in the short run. But it is unclear how long people can survive in deep mines. They need energy and resources, and if the surface of the planet is contaminated and cloudy through environmental, nuclear, and biological disaster, it may prove infeasible for people to survive very long in deep mines. Those lucky enough to survive a nuclear holocaust, for example, might just starve off after 50 years.
In the long term, going into space may be the only way to ensure human survival. Right now, at least, we have the economies of scale needed to make such a thing practical, and so it would seem like a shame not to take advantage of the moment.
I am inclined to agree - I don't believe space travel will be an effective way to minimize our existential risk in the next century, and frankly that's my only serious concern.
The one exception that might apply to that rule is global warming mitigation via a space-based shield (eg Roger Angel's proposal).
The space elevator is a non-starter; look at other launch megastructures.
Unknown,I'd prefer to live here, on the surface, until deep mine colonies have been around for a while (maybe a few hundred years?) on Earth and Mars. Then, I'd probably want to live in the most secure one here on Earth. I do give priority to my personal survival. I care about the survival of the human race to the the degree that it maximizes my personal survival odds. If the rest of you were to blip out of existence tomorrow, it seems to me that my persistence odds would be fatally compromised.
HA, would you prefer yourself to live here, or in a deep mine colony on earth, or on Mars?
Also, why do you care about the survival of the human race? I thought you just cared about yourself.
Just out of curiosity... how much now to send data (eg. genomes + culture) out of reach of hungry goo and dying suns, and preserved for 10^10 years for tardy alien discovery? How about cryopreserved brains, after nanotech but before singularity?
I just want to voice strong support for BOTH deep mine colonies on Earth and on nearby planets/moons. It seems to me to be a very reasonable hedge against disaster, and I think we can afford the efficiency costs of doing so. Ballparking it, I think our goal should be 10% of the productive population living in sealed mine shafts throughout Earth, and 5% of the productive population living in similar environments on Mars and elsewhere. Realistically for Mars this would involve mostly transporting embryos rather than adult humans. It's a silly luxury for nearly all of us to be living on the Earth's surface.
I have similar concerns about monoculture. I'd like to see time capsuled human population (wouldn't have to be mine shafted) with no outside contact with the rest of us, and scheduled for release after various amount of time of isolation (from 1 generation to 1,000+ years), to keep fresh encounters with differently developed human cultures as part of our experience and opportunities for epiphanies.
Robin Hanson to Technophiles: Get Real
I've often heard Robin Hanson called a "space cadet" or even a "replicant." So it's pretty dramatic to see him...
I just want to back Tim up - NASA's budget is tiny, not just compared to the NIH or the NSF. Consider that the total 2007 budget is about $1.7T, so all three together are still less than 3%! If you want to complain about government expenditures, look at the debt interest, or at the military. Playing around with the pennies at NASA is silly.
Also, you should remove the bias in your URL filter - a .ca domain is not "invalid". Overcome your .com bias!
This sounds like something I've been saying for a while. I first understood it from a gentleman on rec.arts.sf.science (Frank Palmer, I believe)
When I first read it, my first impulse for one shameful instant was to contradict him with some notion of The High Frontier / O'Neill / Colonies in Space, but a moment's reflection convinced me it was absolutely true.The desert, the oceans, the polar regions are all hospitable compared to space. They have air, and more reasonable temperatures, and no real radiation hazard, and you can get to them far more easily. Both the desert and space lack water, but getting water to the desert is a lot easier than getting it to space.
Perhaps the appeal of space colonization is that, because space colonization is mostly fictional, we (science fiction buffs at least) associate it with a lot of appealing things that don't logically follow.
The solar power satellite idea, however, doesn't seem crazy to me.Two things space has going for it is a bright, steady solar energy supply and a lot of room. Won't work if it needs much human maintenance, though.
Not so the idea of saving humanity from asteroid death by moving a part of earth's population into space. For the foreseeable future, there is exactly zero chance of being able to save humanity in this manner. We're able to put a few people in space, but they need to be constantly resupplied from earth. If an asteroid wipes us out, they'd die too, just a few weeks later. Those who give this as a reason for manned space exploration need to explain how they think orbiting the ISS right now (or another moon mission, or the mars mission) has any positive effect on our far-future ability to do this. (And the explanation can't be just a series of steps and saying "Now we're at step one")
One more thing: If anything, the case for manned space exploration has gotten weaker as computers and robots have improved. When we sent men to the moon 1970-ish, we really had to send people in order to collect interesting samples and do other things we wanted. The Surveyors sent back pictures, did some experiments that didn't need any set-up, and that was about the best one could hope for from a machine.
Now that's no longer so, and Moore's law makes it less so all the time.
I'd bet most advances in space travel will come from advances in supporting technology (just like most advances in every other industry).
Seed the added to post.
Dave, what discount rate?
Tim, you have to add in non-NASA government space research.
Re: "The argument I keep hearing for space exploration is that we need to get off Earth in case something horrible happens"We also need to be able to protect the Earth against big rocks - and put sensors and transmitters into orbit.