Slashdot Mirror


An Interstellar Lifeboat for Humanity

cravey writes "From the people who brought you the Oceania project so many years ago comes the Lifeboat project. An attempt to create a spaceship for the purposes of saving the human race from the singularity predicted by Vernor Vinge. Lots of talk about nanotech accidents and biological accidents wiping out civilization, but it has a neat picture of the ship. :)"

21 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. Abandon ship by pardasaniman · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have a slashdotting approaching at nine O'clock Fire the torpedoes Ay Cap.......

  2. Sadly... by dirkdidit · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was no lifeboat or amount of bandwidth that could save their server. God bless its smoldering soul.

  3. The best lifeboat by cscx · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I would have to be shot into space in a lifeboat, it would have to be in a gigantic Bob's Big Boy.

  4. "wipe out humanity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    now there's a thought. more of a long term
    thing though...first we need to focus on more
    immediate goals." - 12 Monkeys

  5. My suggestion... by Moonshadow · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say we just offload all the extremists and morons onto Mars. We'll call it the "Get Off Of Our Planet" (GOOOP) project. That should help the longevity of the human race, although I can't speak for the "Mars colonists". :D

    1. Re:My suggestion... by MouseR · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those who don't follow, Zyclon-B was a hydrocyanic acid initially used as disinfectant and insecticide that ended up being used by the Nazis in the concentration camps,

      It's also the name of a Metal group from Norway that ought to disinfect their own style.

    2. Re:My suggestion... by Cyno01 · · Score: 5, Funny
      I say we just offload all the extremists and morons onto Mars....That should help the longevity of the human race, although I can't speak for the "Mars colonists"
      They'd probably come back and start pushing us around, acting like they're the only planet in the solar system. Look what happened when Europe started sending all its extreemists, nutwhacks and convicts to the 'new world' and didn't expect them to survive.
      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    3. Re:My suggestion... by Incon · · Score: 5, Funny

      But there's no atmosphere on Mars! That's an awfully expensive way to kill millions of people!

      I do not think millions of people will die.

      As a long line of Mars movies have educated me, only about 1 to 10 people die because of no atmosphere. Then the hero(es) fixes it all up and Mars has atmosphere. And everyone is saved.

      References to get you started in Mars terraforming
      1. Total Recall
      2. Red Planet

  6. Save humanity from the Singularity? by moebius_4d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just a second... to save the race from the Singularity? The Singularity is a good thing. If you read Vinge's essay, or any of the other essays on the subject, you'll find that people look forward to this event and are actively trying to move the date forward. One fellow says that the definition of morally good is that which makes the Singularity happen sooner.

    (There's a lot of interesting things at the Singularity Institute by the way.)

    So either the poster is on crack, or ve represents a new and radically different perspective on the Singularity than I have ever seen in print. Which is it?

    1. Re:Save humanity from the Singularity? by Galvatron · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Huh, I'm not sure it's a GOOD thing. Isn't the idea that it's an unpredictable thing? As I understand it, the theory is that beyond the technological singularity, human society (if it even exists) will be radically transformed. So, as a person born before the singularity, I probably wouldn't like it. Just as many of our grandparents, raised in a time when homosexuality was considered morally equivalent to incest or bestiality, are sickened by the Gay Pride parades, many of us would probably be sickened, frightened, or at least strongly morally opposed to the social norms that arise on the far side of the singularity. Be it cybernetics, cloning, genetic engineering, AI, vat grown fetuses for stem cell harvesting, or God only knows what, there's almost certain to be a technology we will one day use that makes you uncomfortable.

      I'm not sure running away is the right answer, but I would be cautious in calling the technological singularity a "good thing." Those who are a product of it will likely consider it one, but those of us who precipitate it likely will not, and will long for the "good old days" from before the singularity.

      Anyway, the guy in the article isn't afraid of the singularity, as such, he's afraid of the dangers that might arise (accidentally or through terrorism): grey goo from nanotech, killer diseases from bioengineering, Terminators from AI, and so forth. The singularity will simply accelerate development of these technologies (and hopefully, ones to counter the dangers, too).

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  7. An Entire Interview by ekrout · · Score: 5, Informative

    I found the following interview on SpaceNStuff.com and decided to mirror it here ('cause Slashdot can take a Slashdotting). August 31, 2002 posted on 08-31-2002 at 09:35PM by Nancy

    Summary: Interview Part 1
    "The Lifeboat Foundation "
    A matter of life and death.....

    Full Story: Space N Stuff has recently learned of the existence of the above Foundation, as a result of a Guest who visited Space N Stuff and contacted me.

    An email request was made and Mr. Eric Klien, Founder and President of Lifeboat Foundation , generously agreed to an interview. As a matter of fact, once Mr. Klien responded to the questions in this interview, I discovered this is like eating potato chips, you can't be satisfied with just "one". At a later date, Space N Stuff will again contact Mr. Klien for a follow-up to this initial query.

    Please understand that this is a very complex subject and due to space constraints, not all of the details can be presented, however, we are providing LINKS at the bottom of this Interview so that you can check their site for yourselves.

    In a nutshell, the purpose of Lifeboat Foundation is to research technology in a serious effort to build vehicles, or "Arks" that will house permanent residents, away from Earth. In essence, self-sustaining colonies would be established, one at a time, in an effort to save Humanity. Lifeboat Foundation 's basic concept of leaving Earth ... as a "matter of life and death."

    This premise is a result of facts that cannot be denied. Human Beings are finding more and more ways to destroy the Earth, and......... each other.

    Their goals are straight forward:
    By 2004, they hope to educate the public as to 'coming dangers', promote efforts to preserve life, encourage advancement in Space Technology and fund SETI research.

    By 2010, the efforts to develop self-sustaining technologies will be in full swing.

    By 2018, complete the development above, launch a for-profit Corporation that would have as its primary goal , to put the first self-sustaining Space Colony in orbit, 248 miles above the Earth, and have subsequent colonies, further from Earth.

    By 2020, to promote free enterprise in the conquest of Space.

    Space N Stuff : Mr. Klien , your site provides a great deal of background information regarding your goals. However, I do have a series of questions to pose:

    Space N Stuff : If I understand correctly, based on your current projections, people will not be off this planet until approximately 2020. In view of the seemingly endless strikes of Terrorism globally, will your "Arks" be too late?

    Mr. Klien : It will be a close call.
    In a technology timeline produced by British Telecommunications (a multibillion dollar conglomerate based in the United Kingdom) which we have a copy of at http://research.lifeboat.com/btexact.pdf, it was predicted that in as little as three more years terrorists will unleash dangerous bioweapons on the public. It stands to reason that creating self-sustaining space stations during the time between this prediction and total extinction will be a non trivial task.

    Space N Stuff : It is my interpretation that each 'Ark' will be self-sufficient to accommodate 1,000 permanent residents and 500 visitors. In addition, those who are chosen will be the winner(s) of a lottery or benefit from "Lifeboat scholarships". While security is one of the top priorities for The United States, will that be a priority onboard an Ark? Will Lifeboat screen those who enter/win said lottery or scholarships? In other words, will criminals either present or future be included? If not? Would that be discrimination?

    Mr. Klien : Needless to say, each passenger will undergo an intense screening process before being allowed to board. Someone like Martha Stewart, who may have done a little insider trading, would still be considered a potential candidate. But a convicted murderer would have little chance of being accepted as a candidate.

    Space N Stuff : Human Nature, being just that, "human" ... presents many obstacles. Even if no weapons would be allowed, terrorism could flourish in the Colonies, in other ways. Currently, rules and regulations prevail in civilizations here on Earth. Governments here have impossible tasks and in the United States, laws vary by state. How would this be handled within the colonies?

    Mr. Klien : Each colony will be free to create its own laws and standards of conduct. Security officials will have the benefit of a confined station and its finite number of passengers when monitoring suspicious or malicious behavior. And, of course, the use of practical safeguards such as psychological testing will have to be in place for those onboard who have access to dangerous technologies.

    Space N Stuff : On this planet, we have various means to cope with and handle death. Since these colonies have no capability of returning to Earth, how would deceased individuals be cared for?

    Mr. Klien : Long term, we intend for the colonies to repopulate other planets-- including the Earth. As for those permanently living on spacestations, burial traditions would be unlikely. The departed could, in the fashion of a sailor's burial at sea, be ceremoniously launched into the sun. Simple cremation and cryonic suspension are additional possibilities. In all cases, memorials could also be created to both honor those who have passed and provide comfort to those who have lost loved ones.

    Space N Stuff : Although the world has made significant progress with various Space Programs, we still find 'glitches' that delay progress, at great expense. How will Lifeboat be different in this regard? Since the colonies are forever 'out there' how will replacement parts be stored? It would seem to be quite difficult to predict in advance, how many of each, would be needed to keep the Arks functioning at tip top performance.

    Mr. Klien : The development of self-sustaining technologies is essential to this project. We certainly don't want to replicate the Skylab and Mir experiences where they had to toss their junked space stations into the ocean.

    To create effective self-sustaining technologies will require, at the very least, the primitive beginnings of nanotechnology. This technology, which enables the manipulation of matter, atom by atom, could be used to stop a ship's entropy. Also, whatever plagues, fallout or weaponry was used by terrorists to wipe out life on Earth could be removed by this technology, thereby making the planet habitable again.

    For the record, while it will take hundreds of billions of dollars, if not more, to create nanotechnology, we will let others handle the cost. (Over a billion dollars was spent on nanotechnology development just this year.) We will just slightly adjust such technologies so they are useful to self-sustain a space station. And that is what we will spend ten years doing.

    Space N Stuff : For the first time since Man has walked on Earth, scientists and engineers are capable of mind boggling research and results. Yet, our Universe is constantly changing. Solar storms are perhaps altering many of our 'normal' weather patterns. Discoveries are being made faster than the press can report. Wouldn't it be difficult to plan now, with so many unknowns?

    Mr. Klien : It is always difficult to make plans based on educated guesses, but no plan to preserve mankind seems premature when you consider the consequences. Stephen Hawking warns that "You can't regulate every lab in the world. The danger is that either by accident or design, we create a virus that destroys us." With this in mind, can we afford to wait? Can we afford not to make plans?

    Space N Stuff : Finally Mr. Klien , mankind survives in 'groups.' Families, friendships, coworkers. Would Colonies provide employment? How would normal everyday expenses be handled? Would entire families qualify to climb onboard at the same time? Those who find living in space, is NOT their 'cup of tea' will face great stress, since it appears they will not be able to return, assuming there is a planet here still in existence. Can you elaborate?

    Mr. Klien : The more arks we are able to build, the more room will be available to house entire families. And considering that only a few thousand people will be in such close proximity onboard the station, meaningful bonds will be forged, new families will spring up and, with time, a sense of community will grow strong.

    As to employment, consumerism will not die alongside our planet. There will still be financial reward for services rendered. A new frontier offers new opportunity. Everyone will be encouraged to stimulate creativity and to provide the goods, services and entertainment needed for the station to flourish.

    Comments: Mr. Klien ? Feel free to add whatever you wish.

    Mr. Klien : The idea that advanced technologies are not an appropriate match for our primitive culture is an obvious one, but it wasn't until recently that I figured out why few people are worrying about it. The answer is that non-scientists are oblivious to potential dangers, while on the other hand, those who worship at the altar of science live by the precept that future advancements will cure all the world's problems.

    We are currently working on phase 4, the technical credibility, of our ARK I design and, in two weeks, I will be flying off to England to meet with a multibillionaire. Within a year or two, we expect our project to really gain some momentum!

    Space N Stuff wishes to extend its sincere gratitude to Mr. Klien for his timely response and the use of his valuable time. In the near future, we will pursue additional information in the form of a follow-up interview.
    In the meantime Mr. Klien , have a safe journey to England and back.
    Nancy, Director of Operations, Editor
    www.spacenstuff.com

    RESOURCES:
    Below you will find various LINKS within Lifeboat Foundation 's web site. It is very easy to navigate. We hope you will visit and see the details for yourself. Thank you.

    http://lifeboat.com/ex/ : Home Page
    http://lifeboat.com/ex/ArkI : Details on Ark I
    http://lifeboat.com/ex/timeline : Current and Future Goals.
    http://lifeboat.com/ex/faq : Frequently Asked Questions
    http://research.lifeboat.com/btexact.pdf : Research

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
  8. They Post This, But Never Comment on Serious Stuff by exratio · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's frustrating that /. posts this sort of thing, but never touches on serious stuff dealing with the Singularity. Bah to the moderators.

    For example, the Singularity Institute has a vast array of comp-sci-related interesting stuff about General Artifical Intelligence and its role in the Singularity. The institute and volunteers are working on Flare, a programming language for GAI development.

    Then we have the Foresight Institute who have a bunch of scholarly, serious things to say about nanotechnology and its implications.

    Just for starters, of course. Then we have a million other resources out there, such as:

    KurzweilAI.net
    Extropy Institute

    at which one can learn about the Singularity and associated topics in context.

    But no, we get trash like the spaceship guy. Bah, bah, bah. Reason

  9. Re:One hopes... by Metrol · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously their systems work!

    With the end of the world right around the corner the population of the planet would be clammering to get to their site. The server obviously auto ejected itself into orbit after what it perceived to be massive panic on the web.

    If only more nitwit sites had features like this... *sigh*

    --
    The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
  10. Re:A better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Why not shoot our DNA off into space...
    I dunno about my DNA reaching escape velocity, i can only get it a good 3, maybe 4 feet.
  11. Possible flaw in their plan by cosmosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The possible flaw is that by the time they get the technology necessary to live in space sustainably long-term, mature nanotechnology will be available. So at best, they will have a few short years in which to get ahead start. But more importantly, the speed in which they will be able to travel will more than likely be substantially less than c. And once the singularity happens all bets are off, but chances are nanobot probes will be heading off in all directions at close to the speed of light, which means their ship will more than likely get infected, unless this singularity is benign. But if it is Benign, then there is no reason for their escape in the first place. I do wish them the best of luck.

    Planet P - Liberation with Technology.

    1. Re:Possible flaw in their plan by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Informative

      You obviously are uninformed about nanotechnolgy.

      Everybody is uninformed about nanotechnology. It's a term like "theology" or "philosophy," too broad to have any real meaning.

      That said, let me summarize what I know about nanotechnology so you can decide if I'm insufficiently informed. It all started with Feynman's APS talk back in '59. If I remember correctly, it was entitled, "There's Room at the Bottom," or something like that. In it, he talked about the theoretical basis for molecule-scale structures: manufacturing through evaporation, the challenge of lubrication, and so on. Interestingly, I seem to recall, Feynman essentially ignored the implications of the Uncertainty Principle in his talk. That may be my imagination, though; it's been a long time.

      Meanwhile, von Neumann was doing theoretical work of his own on self-replicating systems. (His work actually predated Feynman's talk by several years, but that's close enough to merit a "meanwhile" from me.)

      Drexler first put the ideas together in a serious way in 1981, and in greater detail in his seminal '86 book, Engines of Creation. (I sold my copy years ago to a used book store, so don't expect any chapter-and-verse quotes from me.) He postulated self-replicating devices for manipulating atoms individually; he called them "assemblers." If I remember correctly, he also coined the term "gray goo" to refer to the nightmare of a runaway assembler that devours all available raw materials to manufacture more copies of itself, burying the surface of the Earth in a homogenous sludge.

      Since the 80's, Drexler and others have done a mountain of work on nanotechnological ideas, most of them centering around the idea of the atomic-scale self-reproducing assembler. But that's not the whole story.

      Back to the 1970's. We have these two basic ideas: atomic-scale manufacturing (Feynman) and self-replicating machines (von Neumann). Drexler jumped to the conclusion that these two ideas can be made to work together and ran with it. But the blanket term "nanotechnology" has since been applied to any non-biological physical process that occurs on the nanometer scale, not just Drexler's blue-sky ideas. That's why I say the term "nanotechnology" is essentially useless in any sort of technical discussion. Electron microscopy is nanotechnology. The synthesis of drugs is nanotechnology. PCR amplification of DNA is nanotechnology. Electroplating is nanotechnology. Drexler's self-replicating assemblers are nanotechnology. Everything is nanotechnology, in one way or another. And some ideas that can fairly be called nanotechnology are... well, let's just say they're a hell of a lot less plausible than others.

      To take a specific example, Drexler's ideas of atomic-scale assemblers that replicate themselves and also assemble other atomic-scale structures are here already. They're called enzymes, and they're everywhere. The problem is that they only work inside a narrow range of temperature and environment. If the pH is too high or too low, the enzymes-- or "assemblers," if you prefer-- simply don't work. So they have to be contained inside little self-regulating environment bubbles: cells. And cells-- well, most kinds, anyway-- are too fragile to exist for long without external support. Thus, organisms. And even when an enzyme is in the perfect environment, contained inside a cell that's in turn protected by an entire organism, it still only works about half the time. Even something as seemingly harmless as sunlight can attack enzymes like artillery shells, blasting those fragile molecules into pieces before they can do their jobs. But the biological processes are so ridiculously redundant that 50% or more is an acceptable rate of failure.

      Drexler envisions a very clean, precise atomic-scale manufacturing process. He assumes that this is possible because we're talking about putting atoms in place one at a time; there's no reason any nanotechnologically manufactured object should ever have a flaw in it. But, while that's theoretically possible, it's a lot harder to achieve than you might think. Remember what I said about temperature and environment? Nanotechnological-- or, if you prefer, biological, for at this point they're the same thing-- processes are fragile and delicate.

      So jumping to the conclusion that we will have nanotechnology is meaningless, because nanotechnology means any number of things that cover the spectrum from the mundane to the fanciful.

      --

      I write in my journal
  12. be careful by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Funny
    I found this little gem in the "Oceania Project" farewell letter.
    In retrospect, the biggest problem concerning The Atlantis Project was lack of interest. Lack of interest and the fact that its precepts were based in Libertarian politics.

    The two problems concerning the Project were lack of interest and the fact that its precepts were based in Libertarian politics. And a lack of funding.

    The three problems concerning the Project were lack of interest, the fact that its precepts were based in Libertarian politics, and a lack of funding. And an almost fanatical devotion to our cause.

    The four... no. Amongst the problems... amongst the challenges... are such factors as a general lack of interest....

    I'll come in again.
    I'm not sure I'm ready to put the responsibility for saving mankind in the hands of a guy who's seen too many Monty Python sketches.

    (No sense of humor? It's a joke. I'm kidding. The first two sentences are actually in the letter. I added the rest, because it's funny. Ha-ha.)
    --

    I write in my journal
  13. Re:Sometimes SF weenies cheese me off. by norton_I · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What kind of small minded demon of impotence are you? If I really believed that we would never get off this planet, I would probably have to kill myself. Mankind's destiny is in the stars, and if it takes a hundred years or a hundred thousand, we will make it there.

    If for no other reason, one day, Sol will die. I, or my intellectual heirs, plan to leave by then. You are welcome to stay.

    We have a 5 billion year reprieve on that, so I am not too worried about that today, but I do think about it from time to time. And as a "real" scientist (as opposed to SF), I like to think I am doing a bit to get us to that point.

    In the mean time, we still owe it to ourselves to work out the space travel thing (which I have no doubt we will). The universe a giant playground, and it seems kind of booring to spend our whole lives on one planet.

  14. Lifeboat...to where? by mbogosian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I apologize in advance if this is ill-informed (the site was already slashdotted), or redundant by the time I post this, but say for the sake of argument that we have a lifeboat. Where are we going to go with it? Are we to assume we've already terraformed countless other planets with suns similar to our own?

  15. The "Singularity" = the Rapture for atheists by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know who said that first, but I read it here on Slashdot.

    I like Vinge's fiction, but the Singularity thing strikes me as an apocalyptic/transcendent/eschatological scenario for people who can't stomach the Book of Revelation.

    Face it: the real underpinnings of the "Singularity" are not any kind of hard science, but human yearning for redemption and transformation. All this talk about the growth of AI is a joke -- in fact most of the field of AI is a joke, since no one can even define what natural intelligence is, much less the artificial kind. And technological trends like Moore's Law are not in any way bound to continue, yet geeks treat them like scientifically proven laws of nature, and then extrapolate the emergence of an Ubermind.

    The impulses behind religion -- a desire for collective change and a future utopia -- need not be manifested in traditionally religious ways. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, ostensibly anti- or non-religious people believed in a faith called Marxism, that promised an all-cleansing revolution and a workers' paradise. The "Singularity" nuts are just the latest iteration of this.

    There's a term for the movement of people who want to cyborgize themselves, which escapes me at the moment (exomorphs? something like that). But I imagine there's a lot of overlap between them and the "Singularists."

  16. `Fiiiii-bre!' -or - `When elevators come down' by leonbrooks · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you have a space elevator [...] and the ground point of the elevator becomes un-teathered (e.g. no longer attached to earth) what happens?

    Not much, unless the design deliberately called for it to be under tension. The things are in orbit, after all. Some designs call for the `tower' base to be mobile (a ship). It's not really a tower, it's really a bridge anchored on nothing (from the middle out).

    Breaking it in the middle would be a bit more disastrous. The bottom half would whiplash around the planet (or maybe the bottom tenth, quite a lot would burn up and/or shatter as it re-entered), and what happened to the other half would be highly dependednt on stuff like where the Moon was at the time.

    Terrorist attacks would not be easy to carry off; the elevator would be a very thin low-visibility target to hit, and air defense would be relatively simple. Some quite small computer-co-ordinated guns on the travellers would prove quite lethal to aircraft and missiles alike, and I imagine that provision would be made for directing and focussing the lift laser against larger and/or slower targets. The designs that I've seen would be immune to meteor strikes up to quite sizeable impacts (they're curved - like a tape measure - so even a side-on strike would get at most half of the fibres).

    Terrorist attacks against space colonies would be much more of a problem. From orbit, a rocket the size of two soft-drink cans could loft a couple of kilos of small ball-bearings into a widely dispersed cloud on a collision course with a colony. This would be very difficult to even detect, let alone parry or dodge.

    Terrorist attacks on ground targets from orbit would also be a worry. `We have many rocks, Man.'
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing