Slashdot Mirror
Why We Need to Expand into Space
Zentropa writes "Why do humans need to explore and colonize space? To save the planet and our species, argues an opinion piece in Cosmos, an Aussie science magazine. It makes some good points from an angle you may not have previously considered; for example, it's in the universe's best interest to keep us around. We make things fun. 'So what if humans pass into history? It's not just a tragedy for us, but also one for nature. Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach. As the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan once said, "we are a way for the universe to know itself". But we also deserve to continue because we have created things greater than ourselves. Not only scientific and engineering knowledge, valuable as this is -- we have also created new and beautiful ways to see the world through art, music, literature and performance.'"
I grew up with the space program, and I remember watching the moon landing on tv when I was a little kid. It was pretty much the coolest thing ever. For most of my life, I've been a big space supporter.
I'm not any more.
We do a lot of cool stuff in space -- the Hubble is a great example. But I think it's mostly a military program. The program is thick with screcy, and so much of it seems to be part of this strangelovian plan to militarize everything.
If we were actually going to do that cool stuff in a transparent way, I'd be all for it. But we're not. We're going to lob satellites into orbit to support networked weapons systems, and to spy on people, and all the rest.
The cool stuff is mostly bait and switch to get us to accept the ugly stuff without examination or complaint.
Expanding into space is not a trivial thing. To paraphrase Douglas Adams: "Interstellar distances do not fit into the human imagination." Not only does it take a long time to get anywhere, but when you get there you are unlikely to have enough resources left to survive there or even get back home. So if biological organisms are too resource intensive (food, air, etc) for the timescales involved and it is not feasible to store/produce/mine resources to sustain them along the way then we must consider alternate forms of intelligence to handle the logistics of human space settlement. When, not if, we develop machine intelligence then those having much simpler resource needs - ideally just electricity - the intelligence could travel between the stars exploring and seeding planets as it goes and generally carrying on the human lineage for millenniums to come. If we as a species decide that our form should be replicated to the stars then we can include on our ships the human genetic code stored and when a suitable world in chanced upon reproduce the genetic code back into a human (grow them in a tank) and raise the humans on-board until maturity teaching them out of human knowledge also stored on the ship (robot nannies for the first generation). Once you get up to large scales such as galaxies and clusters the facts of how long and resource intensive it is to operate on those scales almost requires something like what I've written above.
Shh.
It's been said that math and science are the most likely things to be shared between different, intelligent races. If that's the case, then many alien species may find classical music to be very pleasing in its forms and the interplays of wavelengths. Ratios play into visual mediums in interesting and beautiful ways.
;)
I agree on the science and math. I strongly disagree on the music - sure the ratio of tones might be a universal but there's a lot more to it that - music is tailored to our attention span for a start, things are repeated just enough for us to remember then, just before we get bored, a new theme is introduced. It seems unlikely that anything else would coincidentally have the same thresholds. And who's to say they wouldn't prefer their music at humming bird speeds? Or as a week long contest like a cricket match?!
As for the visual arts - they're even worse because our colour perception is so arbitrary. Whole paintings would likely look brown to an alien!
In short, I disagree back
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
You're right that there's little evidence to believe that something will evolve to replace it. More likely, we'll go extinct and then some other intelligent species might evolve, but given the billions of years evolution that previously took place, not very likely.
But there's two trite assumptions you've made that always annoy the hell out of me, because there's absolutely nothing to support them but a kind of quasi-prejudice. While at first glance, these two assumptions might seem seperate, they have the same root.
First you implied that somehow classical music is somehow superior to all other forms of music. Bullshit. Classical music was simply the popular music of the day. There's nothing magical about it. You described classical music as "very pleasing in its forms and the interplays of wavelengths." (Typically one describes audio as frequencies, but whatever.) Well geez, since every musical form has forms and interplay of frequencies. That's what distinguishes music from a steady tone. But your choice of aliens enjoying classical music is very telling. Over the years it has become perceived to be superior to all other forms of music because of the perception that "smart" and "successful" people listen to it. As the antithesis to classical music, rap is typically given. I suspect that the thought of many alien species finding rap music pleasing never entered your mind, because classical music is for winners and rap music is for losers. This is a very persistent view, even though there's no evidence, let alone anectodal evidence, to support it.
This leads me to the second assumption, which I already touched on. The assumption that aliens are somehow super intelligent/powerful. Basically, Klaatu from Day The Earth Stood Still. Why? What's the basis for this very common assumption? Simple. Some want to believe that someone will come down from the sky and solve our problems. That's absurd. Given that we have absolutely no evidence for any intelligent and technologically lifeform existing anywhere in the universe besides us, I would argue, that this leads to an obvious conclusion: that humanity is the most intelligent and technologically advanced lifeform in the universe. It has to be someone, so why not us? Oh. Right. That would be too depressing.
Evolution rewards fitness for the environment. Not intelligence. Not culture. Nothing but who can fuck the most. It's good to remember that in discussions like this.
The two activities overlap significantly - a critical skill we need to learn for surviving in space is how to run a viable ecosystem, whether it's on a closed-system spaceship or a terraformed planet. So far we've only run a few small closed-system terrarium experiments like the Biosphere (which had to cheat and bring in extra oxygen, something that's only easy to do when you're on a working planet) - even non-closed-system spacecraft like the Space Station have been getting weird mold problems we don't know how to manage well. And we've got one experiment running on terraforming a planet (Earth) which is going pretty badly at the present time - we don't even know how the thermostat works yet. So we're going to need to learn to fix planets before we can get off this one, and the best way to learn that is by trying to fix this planet.
Also, the energy requirements for getting lots of people off the planet are amazingly high; we're decades away from building even space elevators, much less mass-production rockets, and since we don't know how to run portable ecosystems yet, it doesn't make sense to give high priority to the transport parts; we can let Moore's Law crank for another century or two just fine.
There are one or maybe two exceptions to that - satellites studying and observing the Earth are really useful in learning how to fix the planet, and we can launch those with our current low technology. Unlike other parts of the space program, which have given us powdered orange drink and better military missiles by diverting scientists and engineers from making better commercial aircraft or more efficient automobiles, the satellite part of the space program may have been a big win. Also, power satellites *might* be useful as an alternative to carbon-fuel or nuclear energy, and it might make sense to work on them early, but that'll take a lot of earth-based design to show whether it might be feasible.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You're absolutely right that it costs a lot of money to get stuff off Earth. Thing about space is, there's so much resources up there for the taking that just about anyone who manages to "mine" just one asteroid, or crater on the Moon, or the atmosphere of a gas giant, is going to be rich beyond the ability of Earth's markets to measure.
The off-worlders will be so rich they can buy the services of anyone they need. And if they see a need to bring them into space, then they will. Seems a lot more likely that the whole Earth will be seen as a cheap source of labor, much as third world countries are seen by first world countries today. I think the term "first worlder" might become derogatory this century.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Absolutely. I'd even go as far as saying you're out of line when you say 'you're probably right' - well, no, you have no way of asessing that probability. For all we know we could be the single best thing that ever happened to the universe. Hell, one could even argue that all our planet-destroying is hugely beneficial in the grand scheme of things, even if it may damage ourselves. Who are we to judge with our limited mindset?
So yeah, agnosticism is a healthy position. In the absence of strong data I find it the only logical choice. Absolute statements like that of the GP are generally nonsense. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.