Slashdot Mirror
Space Development And Earth's Future
apsmith writes "In the New York Times' Sunday Book Review Dennis Overbye reviews British Astronomer Royal Martin Rees' new book: Our Final Hour - A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future In This Century--On Earth and Beyond. The book paints an exceedingly grim picture of our future - Reese gives humanity only a 50-50 chance of surviving the 21st century, with all the potential for calamity we have unleashed (and that nature may have in store for us too). But the book isn't just doom and gloom - we CAN do something, and the answer lies in space. But NASA has been doing it all wrong. Interestingly enough, this coming weekend is the International Space Development Conference in San Jose, where you can find out the latest ideas on how we really should be settling space."
We can't assume that just because we go live somewhere else, everything will be okay. Granted, that's a simplistic argument, but humans will tend to carry conflict with them, or create new conflict elsewhere.
NPR had a show on Talk of the Nation Science Friday about this too. The link to the show is here. The segment is in the second hour, so scroll down.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I just got a new interview with him in my email from edge.org, where he speculates on multiple universes, alternative formulations of physics and the Matrix (hehe). It's here, for all of youse enjoyments. (N.B. RealPlayer format)
-raph
Let's face it, we've just about used some natural resources on Earth up. We're making it mor un-inhabitable every passing moment. Humanity is not getting smaller. We could all be wiped out with a good size chunk of iron ore hurled into our atmosphere. The only way for humanity to survive in the very-long-term is to diversify our holdings ;)
Then again, we could just sit here and live up to the name we've given our sun: SOL.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
He says, in fact, that he has bet $1,000 that an instance of bioterror or bioerror will take a million lives before the year 2020.
Only $1,000 for a million deaths! What a rip off. You can make more for hacking an XBOX!
It's time to take action instead of being wistful and just talking about it...
science is a religion
"This is my long-run forecast in brief: The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards. I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse." - Julian Simon
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
All matter will decay. This universe will end in a big crunch or expand forever into nothingness. It won't matter if we escape the solar system. There is no place for us to go. We will all die and the matter we're made of will decay and the universe will end and there is NOTHING we can do about.
And I think the point should be that in space we will have to struggle to survive again---whereas here we've become all comfortable and self-complacent. Consider your own life: have you noticed that everything you've done that is worth something was done under pressure?
Lets go to Mars!
People like Rees better get used to the fact that we aren't going to get off this planet in significant numbers any time soon and that colonization of space is a pipe dream for now.
So far, there is not a shred of evidence that we can travel faster than light or even get close? But, more importantly, if we can't control population growth and pollution on earth, how is that going to work in space, where just going a little bit over the limits can mean death for everybody? Even Antarctica is very forgiving compared to space--at least you can breathe there and dig into the snow.
Eventually, we may be able to transform asteroids into habitats, but even that is far off, and it will probably not give rise to societies that are self-sustaining.
Rees's kind of "space escapism" is dangerous because it distracts us from the fact that we do have a choice: we can control population growth, we can control military spending, we can control pollution. For the next couple of centuries, we either make it work here, or we become extinct.
"I think we had better stick to more realistic measures here on earth then wistfully dream of a life in space."
Eventually, we will use up our resources. What happens once weve used up all the metals, uranium, fossil fuels and the like? DO we slide back down to being toolless primates again? ANd im talking on the order of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years here.
PLus, theres the whole putting all your eggs in one basket problem.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
How can there be a human nature when we keep evolving all the time?
Two outcomes are not automatically of equal probability. I automatically question the legitimacy of anyone that makes this basic mistake -- at least if any of their other opinions/positions involve stats.
Rees' book reads like a well crafted research proposal! ;)
It seems to me he is a bit of a doomsday merchant. While we do have big problems on this planet, i don't think they are irreversable. First thing to do is get the big business serving leaders out of office. I think government should be like jury duty. That would force every one to take notice of issues. The problem with politicians is that the people who go into politics suck arse. But I do think space colonisation is a worth while venture. I'm sure if we made colonisation a goal, some one would come up with a warp drive or something pretty soon. Think how far we have progressed in 100 years.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
The technology needed to put people on the moon, for instance, was there in the late sixties, or has everyone forgotten that? If NASA, or better yet, an international space consortium of the richest nations on Earth were to launch back-to-back missions to build permanent habitats on the moon and to keep those habitats supplied and working toward self-sufficiency then we could have the dream of a large human presence in space by the middle of this century. And that, my friends, is a pessimistic timeframe.
Once a self-sufficient colony on the moon has been established it's only a matter of time before humanity is permanently established on Mars and the rest of the solar system. Seriously folx, it's not a matter of technology that is preventing this dream from happening. It's a matter of political will and if US (and all the other western nations, for that matter) were to spend half of the budgets they allot for military adventures then the future of humanity would be secure.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Go read "The High Frontier" and come back and say that "we would still be unable to achieve colonization". There's no need for any fundamental breakthroughs - the solar system has 10 billion times more energy than we could ever exploit on Earth (and a somewhat smaller ratio of material wealth). What's needed is the capitalization to get started off this planet, and the human resources off planet to get the location-specific R&D done that will make it increasingly economical and even profitable. But it's not going to happen with all of us stuck in a rut down here.
Energy: time to change the picture.
...there are _two_ possibilities: everyone dies, or at least some stay alive. 1/2=50%
This joke is crappy, but couldn't help myself.
reason defies logic
The fundamental problem is control freaks. These are people who have a serious problem with letting people decentralize fundamentals of life. They are the guys who convinced the GI generation to give up their farms and make their boomer kids get money, whether from central government or big corporations, to have fundamentals like food from the grocery store or a place of residence from the landlord or mortgage banker.
NASA is part of this problem and it is not therefore likely to be reformed to allow decentralization of fundamental resources like land.
Nevertheless I'm sure there are lots of guys who still want to work within the system rather than figure out how to dislodge the death-grip on the planet now held by those like NASA bureaucrats or big corporate moguls.
If you guys want to support NASA, I suggest you take a few years living in poverty so you can pass some laws reforming that organization independent of the conflicts of interest arising from any industry or government funding.
I did.
It radically changed the way I view politics, people and the world.
You could, alternatively, listen to guys who actually walked the talk.
If that sounds more appealing to you than spending years in poverty to learn some very hard lessons, then in addition to the above link to my Congressional testimony, you might want to follow the following links for more information:
Seastead this.
Of course, space aint that friendly, you know...
whether or not you think that this is a worthy goal is a question of ethics...
Logic, macros, and more
You ignore a large number of countries in Europe and Japan whose birth rates have dropped so perilously low they are in danger of losing population. Eastern European countries' fertility rates, while higher than those of Western Europe, dropped dramatically after the fall of the Soviet Union, a totalitarian government. The female literacy rate correlates better than the type of government with low growth rates.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
The technology needed to put people on the moon, for instance, was there in the late sixties, or has everyone forgotten that?
We can put people in permanent bases in orbit. We can put people in permanent bases on the moon. We can probably put people in permanent bases on Mars if we redirect our output from producing sneakers and overpriced fighter jets to producing rockets.
But those are not self-sufficient colonies and they don't achieve what people claim they want to achieve: backup against disaster on earth.
working toward self-sufficiency then we could have the dream of a large human presence in space by the middle of this century. And that, my friends, is a pessimistic timeframe. [...] It's a matter of political will and if US (and all the other western nations, for that matter) were to spend half of the budgets they allot for military adventures then the future of humanity would be secure.
So, let's say we have a permanent settlement on Mars, Titan, and the moon. Now, something really bad happens and earth is thrown back into the stone age. Where are those settlements going to get their Pentiums and RAM from? Their medicines? Their circuit boards? Their software developers? Their silicone hoses and seals? Their fabrics? Where are they even going to get their food from? Their fertilizer? The entire US is capable of autonomy and is highly dependent on the rest of the world for most of its high-tech products.
And where is the food going to come from? Even if all those hotshot astronauts and frontiermen became vegan, they'd still need around 0.1 hectare of arable land (10x100 yards) per person on earth to produce enough food for them; all that needs to be enclosed and heated in space. With a regular American diet, you need more like 100x100 yards per person.
I seriously doubt you'd even get enough volunteers for such a venture because while the thought of living in a tiny tin can on a planet that kills you almost instantly if you go outside under a government that controls the air you breathe may appeal to you, I strongly suspect it doesn't appeal to most people if they thought about it.
Slogan: He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
The thing about colonization to a (sol)orbiting station or a moon colony is that mistakes are deadly and people with problems find themeselves very quickly without an airsupply (as Roger Wilco would say; Sudden decompression sucks as you float into space). I tend to believe that a colony like that will _very_ quickly learn how to behave and regulate. See Heinleins "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". He makes some good points about this in his book.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
You see, there are teratons of raw materials available both on the Moon and in asteroids that are far more easy to get to (once your living in space for the long term) than here on Earth for several reasons.
- The Moon and asteroids all have much, much smaller gravitational fields so lifting the materials off them to move to another location is vastly more easy than doing it from Earth.
- The energy needed to extract, purify and then use these materials is free, abundant and powerful. It's called the Sun and without the pesky influences of an atmosphere solar power becomes a real power house (no pun intended) compared to what it's like here at the bottom of our gaseous ocean. Plus solar power is available twenty four hours a day! Of course on the Moon you have to put up with two weeks of night, but you have two weeks of daylight to generate power to later use for the nightfall. Plus standard fission power plants can be created without worries about screwing up the environment because there isn't any!
Same way that we do here. You see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much....All of the problems that you list have been though of back in fifties and effective plans were drawn up back then. Again, there is absolutely no technological barriers to permanent colonies on the Moon and near Earth. It's merely a matter of political will and money.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
That's an interesting link. I've read about gaseous core nuclear powered rockets about twenty years ago, but I hadn't heard about the "transparent silica" idea of heat transference before. I hope this guy succeeds in influencing NASA in persuing something similar to what he outlines.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
This was not due to some global epidemic or food shortage. What the UN discovered was that, and this was especially true in developing nations, people were opting to have fewer children. They realized the financial burden large families presented and were opting to have fewer children, later in life, so that they can afford better standards of living. That of course is not the whole story, it is far to complex for a short post to cover. I don't remember where to get the info, I think there was a column on it in the front of a recent Scientific American issue.
The point is the effect is real, and the UN has had to change its long term prediction of global population. In 30 years, instead of exponential growth and a vast underfed population, the world population should reach a plateau of about 10 billion and stay there comfortably. I highly recomend finding the SciAm article, it's really very interesting. If I can dig it up at home I'll post the issue number later.