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.'"
Are we humans a benefit to the universe, as TFA suggests, or are we a detriment? Each point of view will certainly be represented in the posts that follow. FWIW, I think we are a benefit.
For those who think that we are detrimental to the universe, I suggest that the only logical thing to do is to kill yourself. Now. For the good of the universe.
Quit reading; do it now. Thank you.
Because we are a gas?
Something else will just evolve to replace us once we're gone.
Also, seeing our Art as something 'bigger than us' seems strange to me. All of our Art forms are so tied to the way the human visual, auditory, language and memory systems work I doubt they'd be of any value to a non-human.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Slasdot getting mistical?
Let's face it, the universe doesn't give a shit about humans one way or the other. It will evolve toward its final configuration -- heat death, the Big Rip, the Big Crunch, whatever -- with no regard to any intelligences living within it.
Humanity will also never occupy more than a tiny corner of the universe, as most of it is just too damn far away to be accessible. No matter what we do, our effects will be "local". Thus, we as a species should do what is best for ourselves (and for any other intelligences we may encounter, if we ever do) and our living conditions and not worry about "what the universe thinks", because if it thinks at all, it sure isn't thinking about US.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
John Sinclair: "No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."
The quote, "We are a way for the universe to know itself", if I remember correctly is of Sagan's.
And yes, it would be a natural extention of what we did 50K years ago, to spread out from Africa to Europe, Asia & other continents.
Also if we are to survive we have to explore other Galaxies without DRM, RIAA, steve jobs Oops that last one gonna get me tons of hatemails...lol
Something 'greater' than ourselves? I'm sick of this line of argument. Why is it that modern humans have this incomprehensible need to quantify relationships that should be, if nothing else is, qualitative. Our relationship to the earth, to its creatures, to the possibility of other life forms or the universe - why do these very complex relationships have to be confined within the mathematical and linguistic bounds of greater or less than?
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.
Humans are at their best when they're expanding. Human tribes tend to only fight when there's a scarcity of resources. The wild west was only violent for consenting adults; rape was nearly unheard of and outside of gunslingers, people were murdered infrequently. That's one of the points of the article.
It's a pretty sad life where your purpose in life is dictated to you by an imaginary person. Believe as you want but don't attempt to denigrate others beliefs because you lack the capacity to see their point of view.
Irony already noted. I was trying to be non judgmental in the reply. I failed miserably.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
It means nothing except to the human race, making this argument pointless unless it's made to the human race. So, in a large sense you're right, but in the sense that the universe is what its observers say it is, and we're the only observers we know about right now, you're wrong, and nowhere in that argument is a creator necessary.
I would argue that those who cap human desire with religion fill their mind with answers to the great question of "Why?" to get through their lives. Take a person who believes there is a greater being who created us, and asks only that we worship/believe in him for eternal salvation and, at death, we will know and have opened before us the universe in all it's wonder. Then take a person who believes when he dies, he becomes null, and he simple ceases to exist. All that awaits him is death. I would argue the latter person would want to know all he can - venture as far as possible and strive in life - as opposed to adhere to religion waiting to die for the answers to become known in an afterlife.
Short yet sharp and effective series of words to stir immediate and strong emotion.
"Earthman teach me this thing you call kissing?"
Well, like any other species we need to expand our range or die. The ultimate motive is reproduction. Thats what drove the conquest of [insert name here]. Much of the wars in the 'old' world where due to some form of population pressure. Beyond the greed of king and clergy without the people to do the invading you didn't invade. It's the only real yardstick that counts. Be it Mongols, White, Vikings, etc. The species Homo Sapient expands or gets swept under.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
"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."
Nature doesn't care the least bit if someone witnesses its infinite beauty (which is a purely human term anyway; not the nature is beauty, but nature, or rather some part of it, fits our perception of beautiness). It doesn't care if we thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach. Nature has no wishes, no feelings and no desire. It also doesn't exist for a particular purpose (least of all, for the purpose of being considered beautiful). It just is. Not more, not less.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
Huh, I don't know if you are trolling or joking or what but anyways. Why is our existence only meaningful if it serves some purpose of some creator or "something greater than yourself" (whatever the hell that means)? Say that you discover tomorrow that there is no such creator, would you really commit suicide? If not, than you must have some other reasons for living. As your homework, figure out what they are.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
When we reach a critical mass of population of our species we won't need you. We merely await the coming of Doctor Zaius.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
we may bring out the best of our surroundings, the audience are no one but ourselves. without another alien race/civilization to make comparisons, we may be the omen or parasite to this universe.
A dream of killing all the humans. Is that so much to ask?
Hey baby, what go and kill all the humans?
I am Bender, please insert Liquor!
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
You just can't expand into time.
You also can't expand into say, love, or the scent of almond, or square root of negative 1.
When it comes to extension, expansion is only possible in space.
Duh.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
While the word "belief" is just a word to describe a kind of sentimental wishful thinking, I can see the value in what one might call an orientation toward that which is not ones' self, if for no other reason that just what the "self" is only can come into clarity by orientation toward something else. Even the greediest, most avaricious, "selfish" bastard is being driven by something that they don't have, and either want to acquire or experience. (Acquisition is, existentially, just the possibility of future experience, after all.)
What it means to be "greater" or "lesser" than the self is usually left unspecified. For the most part, I think even those Westerners who think they are beyond the Judeo-Christian religion still rely on assumptions, categories and concepts that are very much based on Christianity, and sentiments like the above are demonstrative.
Now mod me down for goring the sacred calf.
Ho-ly shit. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Do they raise geeks on shitty, whiny junior high poetry instead of Heinlein and Asimov now?! Damn! Moving forward into space doesn't have fuck to do with GOD or the "meaning of life". It's the next goddamn step. You all of you whiney bitches saying "oh, what's the point... humans are sooo terrible" are just refusing to help because you're to damned selfish. Selfish because you don't think your children, or your neighbors children, or anybody's grandchildren should get the same thrill you did when you first saw the Shuttle take off in grade school. Or the first moon landing. Or the first manned orbit. Or the first mother fucking flint scraper.
What assholes. No wonder you don't want the human race to expand into outer space -- you assume we are all just like you! Fine. Stay in Middle Ages Europe, afraid to fall of edge of the fucking planet. Yeah, it's hard. Life is hard. Get used to it. But ruin it for everyone else -- even in the future -- by not even trying? Pathetic.
I wonder why Carmack or even Branson are so interested? Oh wait, they must be "god freaks" or idiotic enough to believe that we are eternal as a species and there will be no Big Rip, Big Crunch whatever according to 90% of these posts. It sure as hell isn't gonna make them money while they are alive.
THIS is slashdot? If the human race goes out like a punk, I'm blaming all of you.
--
It's about time I earned some negative points. Fuck.
I've always been sorta partial to Lee Smolin's hypothesis that universes can beget universes. The consequence of this assumption is that the parameters of universes, like the constants of nature there, will evolve by natural selection into sets of universes more likely to breed.
It's not totally implausible that having parameters conducive to life and complexity in general would be a good reproduction strategy down the road.
Now, where did i put my bong?
I think it's clear that the biggest threat to our existence as a species is our own selves, if we can't solve that problem how does going off into space help?
It helps on two levels:
1) We're assured surviving an asteroid hit, or other planet-busting catastrophe (whether natural or man-made).
2) An expansion into space may not SOLVE humanity's tendency to fight, but it might buy us enough time that we might solve them before some wacko destroys the planet taking us ALL out in one fell sweep. IE by expanding into space, even if some wacko does pull the trigger its not game over for humanity.
So if I'm understanding correctly, his proposal is that after the Earth is 'full' at some optimal value x, any excess population is then shipped off into space?
Since the world population http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop has a net increase of about 2 or 3 people per second, or about 200000 people a day, he just needs to figure out how to build enough starships to ship 200000 people offworld every day.
SpaceX believes that $500 per pound to orbit is achieveable http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=10. Assuming each of those 200000 people weighs an average of 150 lbs (and ignoring things like, oh, I dunno, air, water, food, and habitable space), his proposal would be expending $15,000,000,000 per day, forever, to keep the population of Earth at some optimal number.
Now, I'm all for keeping an open mind about spreading humanity's risk of complete annhilation by spreading to other planets if possible, but to use the argument that this will solve Earth's putative population problem seems...flawed.
Sounds to me like the "humans" he's talking about are really just people of European descent. Not humans in general. I'm sure if you looked at world discovery from the perspective of other cultures, things wouldn't look nearly so romantic in terms of finding new frontiers and exploiting new lands. And in many cases you'll find victims of such behavior. I think we really should consider getting our shit together here before any serious attempts to colonize space. Otherwise we're just repeating all the same destructive patterns of the past. Well, at least there aren't any (known) life out there for us to victimize, but still, the proposed patterns and attitude are pretty much the same.
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Why is our existence only meaningful if it serves some purpose of some creator or "something greater than yourself" (whatever the hell that means)?
Because otherwise it's just nature's laws playing itself out, with all of our existence being nothing more than a random series of events.
Oh yeah, the subjugation and murder of millions of Native Americans (north, central, and south) is a great example of humans being at their best...
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Going off into space isn't instantaneous, if it were, it probably wouldn't help so much alone but there are a lot of technological innovations that have arisen from our previous and present efforts at space travel that benefit us currently. Not only would further strides in space exploration/colonization produce further innovations to help benefit us here on earth, but it could also help stimulate the economy by producing jobs and help prove that dreams actually are attainable as more people go to space or get jobs that help put people there.
I'm fairly certain that all of those factors could help reduce crime and improve society at least on some level.
Go to a beach and pick of a grain of sand, and that single grain is a more important part of that beach that this planet is of the universe...
And a few little animated molecules on an insignificant speck are somehow so important?
There are possibly millions of other sentient species in the universe. Who's to say we're the most interesting? And who's to say our species is more interesting and unique than, say Tyrannosaurus Rex was?
From the perspective of US, of course we're important. From the perspective of ants, ants are more important. From the perspective of the entire universe, there IS no perspective of the entire universe, it doesn't fucking have one. If we cease to exist, or rather WHEN we cease to exist, it's just another wiggle in the vibrations of the stuff of the universe.
That's not to say the extinction of humans wouldnt be a tragedy, but get over your inability to see past your own perspective and realize that the tragedy would be for US and us alone. It would be a tragedy for humans. It would not be a tragedy for anyone or anything else. For most things, it wouldn't be noticed. For some things, it would be a boon - opening up new niches for life to spread into. Things would replace all the megafauna we've hunted to extinction. To an outside observer, the earth might even look nicer - with a more diverse ecosystem. Unless the outside observer is a car nut.
This space available.
Get back to work, you lazy ass. This is precisely why we humans will never amount to a thing!
You know, either you take care of the poor, or they take care of you. Permanently.
At the rate things are going, if we stick around for long enough we'll have generated so many mountains of shit we'll be able to walk into space. Self-healing problem, or something.
If noone is around to remember or rediscover us, will we or our art still have existed?
-tusse
I knew people on /. were generally pessimistic but the majority of these posts are outright anti-human. For all of you who believe the universe and/or the planet would be better of without our race than stop being a hypocrite and off yourself for the good of the universe. What a bunch of sad weaklings you are; complaining about human exploration and equating our technological advances to meaningless endeavours. Man up Slashdot! Have some fucking pride in your own accomplishments and have some hope for the future. Just because you yourself are a worthless human doesn't mean the rest of us are and deserve to be destroyed. Simply sickening.
Creative Demolition
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
Be careful!
the universe hates to be anthropomorphized. It'll get all grumpy on you!
We are no less nature than a rock, orchid, river-in-valley scene. Strawberry cheesecake, RFID card readers, Teletubbies, pulp-fiction and compiler flags are as much a part of 'nature' as anything else. It's the 21st century and people are still hung up on these bizarre Cartesian dichotomies of humans and human life somehow being separate from this mythical 'nature'.
With every reinforcement of human life being separate from 'nature' we're stepping away from the brutal reality that we are inextricably a part of it. No amount of HVAC, terraforming, space-travel, avatarial projection can veer us from this primary condition. As long as we invest in the fiction of us being less-nature-than-nature we'll continue to produce environments that work against us; that reduce the options for our descendents and other feeling creatures. We're a part of nature. Get over it.
we have also created new and beautiful ways to see the world through art, music, literature and performance
Although I wish it were true, there's actually no absolute value in that. Without humans, these intellectual achievements have no meaning. Meaning only exist in the mind of other humans.
This is illustrated by a thought experiment in statistics (curiously enough we use it to make species of disease extinct which is the opposite of what we want to do to ourselves). Consider that there is a fixed chance each year of the annihilation of the earth. Then the probability of humanity surviving forever is zero. However, if we expand to other planets fast enough and each planet has the same probability per year, then the probability of humanity surviving forever is non-zero. This means that our species only becomes doomed again once we fill the universe and can no longer expand at this rate. Hence we have a lot more time to enjoy ourselves.
I don't see how the existence of the creator gives any meaning to life.
You know, I have an idea for a solution to this whole God/no god debate. It would absolutely answer the question for ALL TIME. It would be completely inarguable whether God exists or what form He/She/It/Bob takes if He/She/It/Bob exists. It would let us know undoubtedly whether there is a Heaven or Hell, a Nirvana (not the band), a Valhalla, a Marble Tulip Juicy Tree. All we'd have to do is ring the planet with nuclear bombs, every nuclear bomb currently in existence or that we could manufacture in time, and set them all off at once. BOOM! Problem solved. Question answered. Then, I'd get to stop reading this pointless and endless debate rehashed OVER AND OVER in every single fucking thread. Really, it'd be a relief. I don't see how anyone can say this is a bad idea. Theists would get to (from their perspective) prove that they're right, and atheists don't have anything to look forward to, anyway. Agnostics would finally just make a damn decision already...Really, I think it's a big win all around. Plus, as a bonus, it would also solve every single problem humanity is currently facing. Win/win/win.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Given the naturalistic worldview that is most likely held by the editors of Cosmos and majority of its readers, in which the universe is impassive, unthinking and unfeeling, it is in fact no tragedy at all "for nature" if mankind ceases to exist. That kind of thing only "matters" if there is someone for it to matter "to".
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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.
I'm sorry, did I just hear you suggest that:
A)The universe is consciously aware of our existence,
B)The universe, as a cohesive entity, has direct and absolute control over the natural phenomena that affect the survival of our race ("disasters," as we sometimes like to call them)
and C)That the universe is going to use its omniscient powers to keep our race alive, because it thinks we make things fun?
Is that really what you just suggested?
*facepalm* I think that the scientific method died a little today, and I mourn its passing.
That's the most fat-headed, self-indulgent tripe I've read in a long time. Humanity doesn't "deserve" to survive or to be extincted. The universe doesn't "owe" us anything and we don't justify the universe by our existence.
The only thing the author has shown is that he needs to pull his head out of his arse and be sent for a good long spell in a total perspective vortex.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
You've got some good points challenging some of the unstated premeses of some of the other posters.
I do think that there is an objective reason to believe that a species which was truly alien would like some (not all) classical music more than modern music: it has fewer musical assumptions.
Specifically, Bach's counterpoints make very few assumptions of the listener - you won't have to understand any other art forms to appreciate Bach. Most modern music (Rap, Rock, etc) uses a shared language which has been built up over centuries, and has a whole lot of cultural assumptions built into it. To pick an example, Eminim's song "Stan," which used the Dido song as a backdrop, makes a bunch of assumptions of the listener: we have to understand obsessive fandom, we have to have an appreciation of the irony of using a sweet pop melody to tell a murderous story, and we get all kinds of references to Eminim's earlier work.
Most artists draw on the shared body of culture to express their art - it's a very rare piece which will seem beautiful to radically different cultures. I would put forth that some early Bach would be more likely to succeed in that than, say, Elvis Presley. Also the lack of lyrics helps: if you listen to Rap, or most Rock without lyrics, it's clearly missing something major - many of the older classical pieces are designed as instrumentals, and thus avoid the language barrier.
Just my $.0196 (adjusted for inflation)
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
I've always loved some of the polemics JMS gives to his characters - another good pair from B5 are:
"sometimes peace is just another word for surrender - so we became the last, best hope... for victory" - Ivanova
and "faith and reason are like the shoes on your feet - you get much further with both than with just the one." - Bro. Theo.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Have you ever worked with the homeless? I have. Have you ever worked in a soup kitchen? I have.
and
America has usually been among the best places in the world to be 'poor'. 'Poor' people in America usually have cars and televisions and places to live. Some 'poor' people have multiple cars.
Ok, let's get it straight. Homeless "have places to live"? People with cars and TVs can only get food in soup kitchens? It sounds like you haven't actually worked with poor people who have it good in US. If you did, I think you would find that they would love to get a (better) job, but everything that doesn't require a master's degree has been outsourced. They would love to live a decent life, but their children get killed in random shootings in the only areas where they can afford rent. They have to raise their 3 children without a father who ran away and doesn't have money for child support. They are met with condescending attitude even from people such as yourself who claim to be charitable.
One day when your profession is outsourced you will have to literally get a "fucking job" and wonder why someone has to get screwed in the ass to get a car and a TV when possessing a university degree and being willing to work do good hard work with hands.
"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."
How am I supposed to take that sentence seriously, by drinking a lot or what ?
That science, literature, poetry, all those things we have created beyond ourselves could be meaningless to the universe. I don't think so, but I recognize my bias. I value those things, so I think that they are important. The universe, on the other hand, may not give a flip one way or another about those things, valuing something else entirely, like ecological balance, or ability to create heavy metals or maybe even entropy. Sagan also said Life was the only anti-entropic force. If so, maybe nature will be glad when we are gone. But, that is anthropomorphizing the universe and she really hates that.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
The word is "romanticisation" ("z" optional in some English speaking territories).
you had me at #!
We need to expand into space like a hole in my head.
Fuck! I can forsee the repeat of the same Old Order entering Mars and Moon.
First they will mine indiscriminately both bodies and earn zillions more. Then people will realize it how it pollutes earth plus the Mars and Moon.
At which time the US Govt. will enter and use tax payers money to subsidize these fat cats to install pollution controls.
Thirdly the influence of private cos will grow to "1984" levels.
Until we establish a fearsome firewall for migration and disallow all guys/gals with Cheney tendencies and also set a high and low threshold of IQ to migrate, we will end up with another Earth on Mars.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Ok, let's get it straight. Homeless "have places to live"?...People with cars and TVs can only get food in soup kitchens?
Let us brush up on logic, shall we? Homeless doesn't always equal poor, and poor doesn't always equal homeless.
Let's move on.
It sounds like you haven't actually worked with poor people who have it good in US.
Sounds like it from what? I have BEEN the poor in the US who had it good. I was below the 'poverty line' (that means poor), and I had a place to live, air conditioning, my own bed, television, car, radio...clothes, food, etc. Of course, it wasn't as nice as I wanted and there wasn't as much of it as I wanted, but if wishes were fishes... the whole world would smell terrible.
If you did, I think you would find that they would love to get a (better) job, but everything that doesn't require a master's degree has been outsourced.
That's odd, I somehow got (several) better jobs, in increasing rank, with NO college degree whatsoever. Of course, it took work. It wasn't fun. It wasn't always the best job.
They would love to live a decent life, but their children get killed in random shootings in the only areas where they can afford rent.
Well, now we're getting in to other issues. Why do their children get shot? Is it because the majority of them want nothing more than to go to school and be left alone? Are most of the shootings random or stray bullets? Also please note that MUCH of the government-assisted housing is in such areas. I thought those programs HELPED people! Yet many times, they simply keep them tethered to horrible places.
They have to raise their 3 children without a father who ran away and doesn't have money for child support.
My father left when I was 3 years old. My mother never received a dime from him, in child support or anything else. Yet we never took any government money, either, because my mom taught us that charity is a crutch and that you can make do without it. So we did. Yet she also taught us to volunteer, not just because it's the right thing to do, but to show us what our lives would have been like if she had not worked herself ragged. I appreciate the sacrifices my mom made SO MUCH more than I did when I was little.
They are met with condescending attitude even from people such as yourself who claim to be charitable.
Actually, people who have been 'in the trenches' are MUCH more likely to be cynical than those that stay in their secluded lives and think that everyone who gets government money actually NEEDS it. Or that everyone who goes to soup kitchens is homeless. Or that everyone who begs for money is poor. Don't believe me? Go spend ONE WEEKEND at a soup kitchen. Then let me know how you feel.
One day when your profession is outsourced you will have to literally get a "fucking job" and wonder why someone has to get screwed in the ass to get a car and a TV when possessing a university degree and being willing to work do good hard work with hands.
If this job gets outsourced (why the fear? They can't outsource EVERYTHING, you know), I'll simply go get another job. I've worked manual labor before and it doesn't scare me. They'll never outsource things like construction, because, you know, it would be impossible. Also, I see 'help wanted' signs ALL OVER THE PLACE. It can't be THAT hard to get a job washing dishes. I've certainly never found it impossible to become employed, given that I'm not holding out for some 'perfect job'. So get off your high horse, dickweed. Lecture me about condescension and then claim I'd be reduced to prostitution if I lost my job? Jackass.
http://xkcd.com/386/
What tool modded the parent as flamebait? =\
I don't care either way, I'm just very curious to find out what's out there, and I wish I could go and find out.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
The other living species on earth would definitely be better off if humans completely left the planet or became extinct.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
My only question about that quote is: Who is Maruputo? I tried googling, but all I can find are more instances of that quote.
Our current pace of exploring the cosmos is equal to camping. You take everything with you, and then you rush back home once your beer and hot dogs have run out. This is not going to cut it. We really are not learning much about getting of this rock with these camping expedition, but it is a necessary prerequisite to the next step of exploration. Overtime, the technology, knowledge, and the willingness to expand out into the cosmos will arise. It is going to take a "Burn the Boats" approach to go someplace and just make it work. Then, and only then do we start to have a lifeboat off this planet we call earth.
-B
Learn to read, and don't be such an asshat.
I said that the Hubble was a good program, but that it wasn't typical of space spending.
And yet you still miss the entire point of the post. Sure it'll be a tragedy, but only to you. All of the rest of us won't give a shit that you didn't do those things... Well, I told you I wasn't interesting. But you prove my point. The parent implied that ants or sand has a perspective and can judge relative merit-- they can't.
You, however, can judge because your human. You choose to think I'm conceited and not care. See? You think you're more important than me. Sand can't do that.
The point isn't that you have to care whether I do those things, the point is YOU have things YOU want to experience. We (collectively) all do. No humans, no experiences for anybody. Is that really so difficult for you to understand? Or are you just one of those "I hate myself" types as above?
Charlie Stross already explained in excruciating detail why it ain't gonna happen....
'So what if humans pass into history? It's not just a tragedy for us, but also one for nature.' he's biased
My, slashdot, this field I'm typing into has the perfect dimensions!
From Rudyard Kipling's Tomlinson
Or, if you're otherwise inclined,
In short, even the arbiters of the afterlife want to know, "What Have Ye Done!?"
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
Species tend to last three million years or so. We aren't likely to face some global extinction in that span. So why talk about saving the human race by going off-planet? It'd be saving the race that the race that the race that the race that the race that the race that the human race becomes becomes becomes becomes becomes becomes. Further than that, probably, assuming we can get a good asteroid/comet defense system in place.
In the short term (fifty years or so), the most likely cause of our demise is ourselves, right? Nuclear winter and all? Nope; that'll drop the temperature by 22 degrees in temperate areas, 10 degrees in more tropical areas, for the first few months; but within a year the temperature will only be a few degrees off. Billions dead, but billions would survive.
And that's probably the best threat we have, unless some madman decides to build a rocket that can go to the asteroid belt and lob a few big rocks at us. Though that's unlikely to be anywhere near accurate enough to be a significant threat, even if such a rocket could be built.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The Universe is laughing behind your back
Wooo hoooh!
From the National Lampoon
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The odds of winning the lottery are one in 50,000,000 and yet every day some lucky soul hits the jackpot. It has been millions of years since the last dinosaur killer. They're periodic and according to the schedule one is due. These are not the only calamities that can befall us. Only one is needful.
A significant fraction is not required. A handful of women and some frozen genetic material should suffice to get started, though as a practical matter we would use more. That and the equipment and engineered biologicals to start the ecology. We can do this today.
We do need to save the planet but we have other needs as well. There are many of us. We can do more than one thing at a time.
If each of us reduces our carbon emissions by half, then in 50 years when there are twice as many of us we will be using the same amount. We will be in no better position to proceed with our other needs than we are now. In 100 years when we're completely out of carbon energy sources and there are four times as many of us the timing will be particularly bad and thereafter will not improve.
If we achieve a colony off of this planet it will be now. Else not. It may already be too late. We are dangerously close to gaining a measurement of L in the Drake Equation in our observable case. L could be less than 300 years, which would go a long way toward explaining the Fermi Paradox.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Often I hear about how we need to expand into space and bring our environments along with us. I believe this is the wrong way to go. It would be much easier I believe to "Marsform" myself then to terraform Mars. While this may seem far fetched and imaginative, it could prove to be simple. The biggest problems of unprotected humans living on Mars is the temperature and the atmosphere. It is quite cold, and there is very little oxygen. However, there is some oxygen. I think it would be easier to adapt ourselves to deal with the carbon dioxide and the cold then to adapt mars to deal with us. I obviously do not have the technical expertise to tell you how it would be done, but I think it is an alternative we should look into.
Because it's there.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Ok, non-sarcastically? I would agree to #1 and disagree with #2.
Nothing is easy, no one knows the future, but we DO know that the universe is a mean, uncaring place that could wipe all life out in a blink.
I seriously think we have an advantage with intellects, thumbs, and technology to help preserve other life when it is threatened in a way that it can't avoid. (Actually, in my own weird view all life is the same organism, really. You don't cut out your brain because you made a few bad decisions, and you body will NOT do just fine without it). We are life. Earth ('s skin) is life -- the only life we've observed in a very large area. We're in it together, like it or no. Where ever humans go, millions of other species will come with us (or in us). IMHO.
We just need to bring enough other nations up to a decent standard of living so that their birthrates also decline. We'll be fine. Natural disasters that wipe out huge chunks of the prevalent life form on Earth happen constantly, on a geologic timescale. The next tidal wave, super-caldera, asteroid, or earthquake will take care of that. These people should really worry about covering their bets instead of killing their fellow humans down to some arbitrary number.
I'm not saying humans are angels, but these people that apparently really believe "all humans must die" is WAYYYYYY too "12 Monkeys" for comfort. And this at least some relatively "elite" portion of society (educated, computer access, technology interest/aptitude). That is bizarre, and disturbing.
How could humans survive for any length in the hostile environment of space, inside controlled micro environments, for even years, never mind generations, when he is already killing and poisoning himself here upon a much more forgiving, and seemingly infinitely larger planet?
All it would take is for one inhabitant to go "postal", to destroy precarious life support systems and wipe out the entire colony.
I hate to be negative, but the fate of humankind, in this type of environment, rests not in the hands of the geniuses, and creators, but rather at the hands of the sociopaths, vandals, who appear in every facet and dirty corner of human society.
From what I've seen of this ape we call homo sapiens, he doesn't stand a chance encapsulated in space.
To decide whether it makes sense to spend resources on manned space travel, you should look at why mankind has explored and colonized new lands in the past.
Natural resources - Early man followed the food. There were edible plants and animals outside of Africa, so if you were hungry where you were born it made sense to go elsewhere for food. Civilized man sought spices, minerals, and lumber. It was lucrative to send out a ship and bring those back. Do the same economics apply to manned space travel?
Religious freedom - America was settled in part by people seeking freedom from religious or economic oppression in the Old World. Do you expect space colonies to escape from the burdens of Earthbound society?
Reduction of overpopulation - Colonization of America didn't do much to decrease the population of Europe. The number of emigrants was small compared to the existing population. For space travel, the number would be miniscule. You'd need to launch a thousand spaceships a day with a thousand passengers each to actually decrease the population of Earth. If overpopulation exists and a fertile underpopulated land is available then it's a good deal for those who make the journey. But it won't help those who stay behind, and we have found no hospitable planets outside our own.
Exploration - Curiosity and pursuit of knowledge are worthwhile reasons for exploration. Men went to the North Pole and the Moon because that was the only way to learn about them. With modern technology we could send a thousand robotic probes across the solar system for the cost of one manned trip to Mars.
Adventure - People still climb mountains just for the sense of adventure. You can build a rocket or buy a ticket on Spaceship One if that's worthwhile to you. But you shouldn't expect the government to fund your trip to the Moon any more than it would pay for your trip to Kilimanjaro.
Preservation of the species - If you're worried about a natural disaster, you could send a few dozen people to live in a deep mine or on the bottom of the ocean. They'll be just as safe as on the Moon or Mars. Plus they'll have protection from extreme temperatures and solar radiation. The journey would be a lot cheaper and less hazardous.
To maintain the spark of life - Life is interesting. It's a pity when some branch of Earth's diversity of life perishes. The universe would be a boring place without life (although there'd be nobody left to miss it). If we're the only life then that's good justification to spread it. But are we alone? Does other life exist? Is it common? Is it like us? Those are questions worth answering. Those are missions I'd be happy working for. Are those missions that would be helped or hindered by focusing on manned space travel?
AlpineR
The good news is that there does not seem to be anyone inhabiting space as far as we can see (and probably travel for at least thousands of years) so that is a nonissue in this case.
Stephen Hawking already said this, as noted here slashdot.org
Be that as it may, the point is that there is no example of humans being "at their best when expanding." Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but in my imagination I picture a kind of space expansion where corporations take advantage of lawlessness in space and turn workers and settlers into slaves. Picture it, you're relatively poor on Earth (can't afford a space trip yourself) and take a job with some company that promises excitement and freedom by working for them on Mars. You sign a contract to repay them X number of dollars. Once there, they take advantage of the lawlessness of the place and essentially turn you into a slave. You get no leisure time. No freedom. No adventure. Just work, 15 hours a day. And even after you do repay your debt, you're still stuck there because there is no way you could ever afford the trip back to Earth. So they can treat you however they damn well please. You're using THEIR life support systems. You're consuming their food. They own your ass. You're a slave.
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Too bad the nature doesn't give a crap (pardon the pun) that we exist and wouldn't give a crap if we didn't. We want to continue to exist cause we all want immortality in some form or other. The race going on is one way to do that. Don't need to make it all 'ooh we do great stuff so we deserve to exist'
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
... is expanding into space quite nicely.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
The fact is humans are out of space and natural resources. All the land and natural resources which humans can live on without significant environmental destruction or significant cost are gone.
The only way for the number of humans to grow significantly is to move into space. It may not be U.S.'s interest to achieve that goal.
It may be more practical for China or Russia to expand human colonies into space while US and Europe focus on robotic missions. Exactly what each country does should be a function of their capital reserves and the desired population growth.
In 2010 US won't have a human launch vehicle for at least 5 years. Then we'll see if humans in space is really valuable to them or if it's better left to other countries.
and you know ants don't have perspective because......... you're an ant? you've spoken to one?
eh, i just hate how we are always assuming other species can't do this or can't do that.. you know, chimps and bonobos stare up at the night sky, just looking around at the sky. who's to say they're not saying to themselves "wow this is fucking beautiful".. who knows what dolphins and whales and many other animals are thinking about... you know, just stop speaking for all species. we know what we humans can do, we know what we think a bout, and that's it. to assume we're the only ones that can think, that can wonder, that are amazed by just being, is ignorant.. because we don't know SHIT
not enough space in the earth to save our pr0n
Our almost religious belief in the need to constantly expand is rooted in the needs of our civilization itself. The process of civilization itself requires continual growth and expansion to avoid collapse. If we somehow do manage to reach a stage where we will be able to colonize distant worlds, what will we become? To me, we'll be nothing more than the big bad aliens of so many Sci-Fi novels and shows. Ravagers of planets and stars for the mere purpose of satisfying the requirements of a cultural story that told them that their expansion and growth was the only worthwhile thing in the whole damn universe. That the lives of countless organisms, the webs of countless ecosytems, and the mass and energy of planets and stars themselves are nothing more than to be exploited for our continual expansion. They will not have any sort of meaningful value to us outside their utility as "resources".
To the people who cry "Why are you so misanthropic? Why do you hate humanity so much", I say that a specific branch of our species that developed unsustainable methods of food subsistence (Agriculture), which led to the rise of a cultural complex known as civilization, isn't all of humanity. Our species existed 90,000 years prior without destroying the Earth and without annihilating themselves in countless wars. The groups of people that formed within that time formed an innumerable amount of various tribes with a shocking diversity of sustainable cultures, as opposed to the monoculture that marks today's modern industrial civilization.
The groups that exist today do not live in constant starvation despite being forced into some of the world's worst real estate by the pressures of expanding civilizations. They do not suffer from constant hunger for they are able to find food from hundreds of sources, a feast that would be unthinkable with our dependence on a few primary food crops for which we devastate so much of the Earth to produce and which in of themselves are maladaptive as food sources for our species. They do not suffer from so many of the psychological malasies that wrack the mind of so many from our culture. They do not evaluate their self-worth in terms of what jobs or careers they choose and do not indenture themselves in perpetual slavery like so many in our society do. Their lifestyles do not need to be supported by the agony and suffering of hundreds of millions (aka first world societies). I am not saying that these people yesterday or today lived in paradise but that rather than promoting a culture of endless exploitation and unsustainable expansion, we might do well to look at the habits and behaviors of these currently existing cultures (the ones that are still left), and see how they've managed to live for untold millienia without ruining the land or without having to constantly expand or without enslaving their fellow man.
As a cultural materialist though, I don't believe any change in ideas will prompt our culture to act differently. It'll take a change in the physical reality, that our civilization tries so hard to defy, in order to shake up our culture. If we find a replacable source of energy equal to or more efficient than oil, then our civilization has a chance of existing for a far far longer period of time and will continue carrying out the same cultural directives of expansion and exploitation that it has for the past 10,000 years. If we don't, than our bright blip in the timeline of our species will end and collapse. Billions of people will die but the recurrence of such mass death and destruction that has marked our history will never happen again. Or at least until stocks of oil replenish which could be a couple hundred million years. The point is that I don't fear for the survival of our species. It'll survive either way in some shape or form outside of a cataclysmic event such as a meteor strike. Even if our species perishes then, it'll only leave room open for the introduction of another intelligent species to arise. So even in the event of our species death, I don't worry about the death of a culture of complex symbolic manipulation.
It seems like fun, things can sometimes get a little boring down here.
The point being is that we are way past doing things for reasons. We do them because we get bored doing nothing and want to find something new, something exciting to talk about on slashdot.
Well, now we're getting in to other issues. Why do their children get shot? Is it because the majority of them want nothing more than to go to school and be left alone? Are most of the shootings random or stray bullets?
Pretty much, yes and yes. Most of the victims had at most a peripheral evolvement with gangs - as in kissing one of the boss'es girls, falling $20 short to pay for an occasional joint or being a gang member's brother. Nothing for which we would expect killed as adults.
Also please note that MUCH of the government-assisted housing is in such areas. I thought those programs HELPED people! Yet many times, they simply keep them tethered to horrible places.
I totally agree. Let lazy bastards get off their bums and build their own home - such as a tent or a wooden shack - in any area of their choosing and start planting vegetables on the grounds. That's what poor do around the world and they have way more self-respect that our government housing types. Maybe then we'll start focusing on eradicating poverty and crime everywhere rather than just in rich white neighborhoods.
If this job gets outsourced (why the fear? They can't outsource EVERYTHING, you know), I'll simply go get another job. I've worked manual labor before and it doesn't scare me. They'll never outsource things like construction, because, you know, it would be impossible. Also, I see 'help wanted' signs ALL OVER THE PLACE. It can't be THAT hard to get a job washing dishes.
Can we ALL be employed washing each other's dishes? Most kinds of jobs involve making stuff rather than being a servant for a rich guy (after all, really poor generally wash their own dishes). It doesn't seem fair to blame someone for not getting a job when we made 75% of occupations - making furniture, working on assembly line, brewing beer, writing Java code - unavailable in US. Let's at least demand that interested workers are allowed to freely move to India or China and try their luck there.
Thanks swokm, you get my vote.
I couldn't believe all of the negative posts, almost as bad as the replies on TFA's blog. How can anyone count themselves as computer-literate, and have such a morbid outlook on life and the future of human kind?
Computer geeks are supposed to be on the leading edge, always looking to advance the state of the art and take on the next challenge. If we, as a group, morph into a cabal of Malthusian doomsayers, who would take up the torch?
Anyone who feels that badly about our chances should just do the rest of us a favor and take the first exit off of this merry-go-round. You're using up our resources and not contributing a thing.
Cheers!
"The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
Ive read quite a few of the responses here and most are screw us, its too far to go and other it aint gonna happens.
Unless I missed it, I didnt see the obvious solution.. it would seem much more technologically feasible to just stay here. Not that it would be easy, but from a sheer technology view making it work here even as the sun expands and encompasses the earth and then shrinks back up would be a lot easier than figuring out how to span light years and hunt for our next-earth needle in the galactic haystack. Without some serious magic (like breaking a few laws of physics, etc..), I dont see us going anywhere that would really make a difference considering the scales we are talking about.
Won't we need to evolve before we can fit into a space environment?
I can think of a few traits I would like as a member of Cosmo Sapiens... resistance to DNA-damaging cosmic rays, resistance to zero-g bone degradation, etc.
But how would people prefer to evolve? Direct genetic engineering or sending millions of people and have each subsequent surviving generations breed until they (maybe) evolve?
If the universe had anything to say on that matter, that's what it'd be. The universe doesn't care. Nor does the planet, or nature. We anthromorphize these things because we care so much that we want everyone and everything else to care too.
If we stayed and altered the ecosphere to the point that we all died, it wouldn't ruin the planet, or even nature. These would continue. It's only us that would be gone and a number of species we wiped out with us. Nature has survived a sudden 95% reduction in species, and could probably survive more, since it started from none at least once. Nature would almost certainly survive, but either way it wouldn't "notice" anything.
All this anthromorphic crap is worse than useless, it's a load of bad excuses that will fail as real reasons necessary to accomplish the job. We should have the balls to admit we need to expand into space because it's our nature as a species. Even the presently sedentary, nominally indigenous populations got where they are due to exploration and expansion. Even some of those have retained the spirit of expansion and looked inwards, and in that way remained viable. Those that failed to explore in any sense became stagnant and simply existed rather than thrive, or else they died. Such is their right, though those whose continued existence without exploration is not the easy life some suggest. I doubt it's a coincidence that to the extent that cultures incorporate anthromorphizing of nature into their belief systems, they do not continue in their development but rather become entrenched at that stage.
My personal belief system includes a human spirit, the emotional and cognitive drive to survive as individuals and a species, and the result of attempting these things which provide us with the notions like courage, tenacity and a sense of worth. We provide ourselves with these and should own that fact rather than try to imagine inanimate or non-conscious constructs try to add to it. Once owned, we can continue under our own power, which has always been the only power that's ever driven us onward. Nature has given us many occasions to use that power, but we have either responded and explored, expanded and thrived, or remained and died.
Have the courage to own your future like your ancestors did. Have the courage to change your belief system as necessary to provide for greater accomplishment like your ancestors did. Their courage gave us the ability to have even more, and we can do the same for our descendants. My ancestors crossed glaciers, deserts and oceans to give me my home and they changed their belief systems because of it. I accept that as my heritage. Some of them changed their belief system to anthromorphize nature, to their detriment. I respect their right to that belief system but reject it for myself, and retain the ability to change mine as they once did to continue growing personally. I believe the same should be true for those of any culture who should choose it as a means to grow, because that provides the opportunity for the same growth to happen to the species. Anthromorphize only that which is anthromorphic. Change into human only that which through which humans change. It is only ourselves.
If you should choose to stay, fine. Nobody will force you. "And the meek shall inherit the earth.
The rest of us will go to the stars." Yet still nature, the planet and the universe will neither know nor care. Only we will, and we're the only ones to which it will matter.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Carl Sagan is like John Lennon for astronomy. He may not be the only one, but he's definitely a dreamer. His assertions may be useful for NASA's PR, but they bear little resemblance to rational scientific thought.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
No, I didnt imply that sand has a perspective. The article argues that the end of human life would be a tragedy for the UNIVERSE. Its arguing that the universe has a perspective. I'm simply saying that from the perspective of the universe (which has no perspective), a human being and a grain of sand have equal value. Our sentience makes no difference to the universe, because nothing makes a difference to the universe. It only makes a difference to US.
This space available.
Humans are animals. It is hardwired in pretty much all life that preservation comes first. To those of you who wish to stay on Earth, are you seriously kidding me? You know what my childhood dream was? I wanted to help humanity expand into space. You know what my current goal in life is? To do exactly that. We're talking about the future of the human race, people. If you feel like letting humanity die on spinning rock around Sol, then off yourselves. But don't doom us who wish to leave the cradle that is Earth.
I will be damned if I die before we start at least colonizing places off this planet, whether they be common planetside outposts, O'Neill cylinders, Stanford torus stations, Bernal spheres, or other designs. As it stands today, if good government effort was put into place on par with the Space Race or even something similar to the massive (albeit slow) colonization of the New World by European powers, I say we could be out to Jupiter before we even know it.
All it takes is the drive and will to explore and move forward.
First of all, humans are going out - so act accordingly.
Second, humans aren't going anywhere in space beyond this solar system. Long before chimpanzees figure out a way to get interstellar travel, Transhumans will replace them and do that figuring out - if it's physically possible. And if it's not, it won't matter because Transhumans, being immortal, basically exist outside time and can go anywhere no matter how long it takes - IF they decide they even need to.
And Transhumans aren't going to give a rat's ass about basically anything humans have done for the last 50,000 years. Their motivations and intentions will be entirely different than humans. While they will undoubtedly remember everything - the sum total of human knowledge at the point of the Transhuman Ascension - they aren't going to be interested in indulging in emotional displays of "beauty and art" which are basically psychologically tied to biological urges to avoid death. While they might be capable of such things, they probably won't bother - unless it turns out that there really isn't anything worth doing once you're Transhuman.
As for "saving the planet", humans aren't capable. Getting rid of them is.
I hate to burst everyone's bubble - well, actually I don't, I enjoy it - but there is never going to be a "Star Trek" future or a "Serenity" future or any other future with humans running around the universe in ships.
The future is going to be a lot weirder - from a human perspective - than you know - and probably weirder than you can know.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Well, for starters, the article anthropomorphized the universe. It belongs with religous writings, not science.
"Some ask: 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".
Factual errors in the above statement:
There is no evidence that "nature" can "experience" a tragedy. There is no evidence that nature has more consciousness than a sack of rocks.
This presupposes not just a human-centered concept of beauty, but that we, as humans, are the only beings capable of witnessing anything. Never mind that the author posits (point #1) that "nature" can "experience" tragedy; if nature can "experience tragedy", then why would nature need us to be able to experience beauty?
Just because Sagan said it, doesn't make it true. We are undoubtably here, and yet there is no proof that the universe "knows itself" today, except in quasi-religious and religious belief systems that posit a god or other supernatural being.
The best reasons for going into space are because its there, we want to, and we can make good use of it. Not some claptrap about if we pass away its a tragedy for nature, when there's more than ample evidence that, if anything, we ourselves are a tragedy on a daily basis. Go into space, by all means. I'm 100% for that, but go because we can, because we want to, because we're curious, because we can find uses for the stuff we find out there, for the knowledge we'll acquire, for the insights we'll develop, because we want the elbow room, or a room with a spectacular view, or to do something different.
These are real reasons to go. Go because WE WANT TO, not because of some metaphysical bullshit argument. The latter just make it easier to stereotype those who see space as a place to expand as just wild-eyed dreamers. The article does us a disservice. I say put the writer out the next airlock :-)
The Universe doesn't give two shits whether we live or die. The Universe isn't sentient. The Universe does not feel. The Universe is the baddest mutha on the block and it won't even notice our passing.
I understand the desire to expand humanity into space, but it's still not logical. Theres 148,939,100 km2 land around. London from 2001 is 11,500 people per Km2 Multiplication time! Thats: 1,712,799,650,000 people! So, 1.7 trillion people could survive on our land surface. Now before we forget, it's very likely that every single advancement that's required for survival in space or on another planet is equally valid technology to increase the density population of the earth. Whats really going on with space nuts, and nuts in general, is they're trained in one area, specifically science. When you're trained to use a hammer, every problem that's looked at is compared to a nail. So why this fear of our over population? It's because the one thing we know from evolution, from sociology, from every aspect of the last 2000 years, is that as population gets larger, war, famine, hatred and indignity increases. This is of course the entropy of the universe. So this talk of space is essentially giving up on trying to solve the more pressing matter of cohabitation and symbiosis with each other, putting warring parties further away from each other is hoped to solve this problem. In space, the distance between you and me is larger, and from this greater expanse, it's hoped that we can learn to get along. Thats not to say space doesn't offer what we need to survive and create a population of 1.7 trillion people, of course to create that magnitude, we need an ample source of resources, and that definately is space. Whats not sensible is that people need to live there, as all the technologies needed to live in a self sufficient space, are the same we need to live in an increasingly urbanized landscape. What it comes down to is that our social structures are not utopian, and because of this, we need to expand into space, since there is yet to be found the holy trinity of social science. So all you space nuts out there, ask yourselves why it seems so dire to conquor space with humanity, since our population isn't going to reach 9 billion till 2050, the earth certainly isn't running out of room. We may need space for the coming resource hungry technology that's certainly to be discovered as urban density increases and city density increases. Our true necessity as most of this dialog shows is that we have an imminent fear of eachother, and it's hoped that somewhere in space, no one can hear you scream. Let me reiterate again, all the technology that will provide for a self sufficient space faring people are equally suffcient to provide for a urbanized earth. And the last thing, we haven't even discussed living in the ocean, a place that's desire able because it's already got an ecosystem we can learn to use and manipulate much like we have done on the earth. Of course, theres that little crushing literal problem of living in the sea. So how bout instead of investing everything we have in getting the fsck out of here, we invest in exploring the life we know existing on the ocean floor. I like the abyss.
Isn't that a quote from somebody? Perhaps there was different context for the word "important" there; it would make far more sense to me (as in "relative size" instead of "value"). But if you argue that the universe doesn't know whether humans are important or not, how can you argue that grain of sand knows it is more important to its context than Earth is to its own? Or are you just saying that we are small? That is beside the point. Maybe I misunderstand.
I wasn't trying to say that you think sand has brains literally, but that it is inconsistent. I humbly suggest that we all agree whoever wrote the TFA is a TERRIBLE writer.
For us to live off-planet is really, really difficult. Face it: we're perfectly adapted to living on Earth -- not in space. We may have been able to achieve the most amazing things with technology over the past 100 years, but let's be honest: it has its limits and one of them called cost. We've only got PCs and the Internet because the chip industry made mass-production and low prices possible. Not so with rockets and portable closed-ecosystem environments. And even if we do ever get the latter to work, living off-planet will still be too complex, too expensive and too dangerous.
Think of it this way: Wouldn't it be silly for a race of intelligent fish to try to colonize the land? Actually, that's exactly what they did, but only after they themselves adapted to the environment over millions of years of evolution. Similarly, I think that if we are ever going to colonize space on a large scale, we're going to have to adapt our bodies first. For example, resistance to vacuum, radiation, zero-g, and increased tolerance for heat and cold would be steps in the right direction. Will the results of such an engineering project still be human? I guess that will depend on what you define as human, but I figure that it's something we're going to have to do if we ever really want to leave this planet.
So, the good news is that there's reason to be optimistic: yes, we will eventually be able to colonize space! The bad news is that it'll likely take a couple of hundred years before we have that kind of capability, and once we have it we may not want to use it. Either way, we're going to have to figure out how to survive here on Earth for the time being.
I don't usually do this, but...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Space industrialization and a solar power satellites will expand greatly resource availability (possibly to the point where for the first time, ending poverty worldwide will be possible) and minimize the impact of power generation and industrial use on Earth's biosphere.
Done on a serious scale, it'll create millions of jobs, and that could be hundreds of millions once things really take off.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Surely, the universe must enjoy being polluted with toxic human waste, while seeing humans displacing all other life that is not domesticised and driving even unknown species into total extinction.
So what if humans pass into history? It's not just a tragedy for us, but also one for nature.What a relief it would be!
Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beautyLast time I checked animals have eyes just like us.
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 performanceIt is only certain enlightened individuals from our species that were able to understand the difference between a human and an animal and choose to use their brains for such higher purposes as art and science, rather than for pursuing animalistic instincts. Unfortunately, the vast majority of homo sapiens are animals and have no appreciation for anything human. Homo sapiens is born an animal, and usually remains as such, except for a small minority who with great difficulty may at some point of their lives become worthy of being called a human. These individuals surely deserve to live, but I am not so sure about the species as a whole.
The source of our disagreement can probably be found in your assertion that colonizing space "is A little different from exploring space."
Makes quite a difference. 'A' difference. Actually, it addresses most of your post. Please re-read.
Spain's consequent bellicose borrowing to pay her war debts.
You prove my point. What does Spain later borrowing for war debts have to do with exploring space? It is beside the point. The new world made people very wealthy. If they then choose to spend all that wealth so what? In fact, if Spain had focused more on exploration and less on old European rivalries, she would have been far better off. We'd be having this conversation in Spanish. Perhaps it is the same in this discussion. You have avoided the thrust of this section, however, which is not all space exploration is a 'mass hallucination' of 'altruism', or 'communist'. It can, in fact, be very lucrative in self interested ways.
I suppose you could have also mentioned the wonderful effects that colonization had upon the native civilizations of the Americas, but why browbeat a point well-made?
What does that have to do with? Completely unrelated. Unless you think there are First Nations on the moon.
an op-ed on spacedaily.com which starts with the author saying, "Lately I have been seeing lots of bad historical analogies drawn from a somewhat later time, the great age of European sea exploration," and ends with his remark that "today's space advocates...often show the same mixture of technical incompetence, slanted data, fanatical devotion to the cause, and brilliant salesmanship that led Columbus and Spain to disaster." I suggest starting your own reading there.
First of all, an "op-ed on spacedaily.com" by this unnamed author is not exactly an historical authority. I am aware of history. Second, Columbus trying and failing to reach the Indies to get rich on spice trade worked out fantastically for me. Are you just jealous because I am an American? You're welcome to be bitter, but it hardly proves anything.
You didn't mention whether you had read Charlie Stross's article on the sheer implausibility of colonizing space
I have, thanks for the link. Charlie seems like a nice guy. He has a degree in Pharmacy, and wrote some creature descriptions for the AD&D Fiend Folio (including one of my favorites). I'd probably get a kick out of talking with him over a beer. But his fiction is hardly the word of law of the natural universe. The question is whether we invest off planet. Whether it is impractical to reach other galaxies or not... I could care less. That is not the same thing.
let's not lose our grip on reality
I agree. I live in a reality where human beings have walked on moon in the cold vacuum of space. I live in a reality where we are technologically capable of sending explorer robots an incredible distance to measure, sample, and record a completely different planet just for our amusement-- without even spending a statistically significant portion of the world's wealth to do so!! Not everyone has to "share my dreams". But that doesn't change this reality, and our capabilities within it. Nor am I a 'junkie' as you put it.
And if your canned NASA engineer went on to develop a way to feed, house, deliver potable water or medicine to, even a fraction of those people, then that would indeed be "a drop in the bucket," wouldn't it?
No. And I refuse to apologize for being either pro-geek or pro-American. We already HAVE technological solutions for all of those problems. Right now. We have had them for years. That is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM, and is unrelated to space exploration, it is a political/social problem. I'll give you an example... 40 years ago, people talked about what a problem overpopulation could be in the future. There were even new technological devices invented to help avert this
...because entropy will win in the end. There's simply no escaping that. Well, OK, may be there is - only temporarily... for a few trillion years...
This all sounds like egoism and idle day dreaming to me. What evidence is there to support the statement that "the universe needs us to know itself"? Do we know it is conscious? As for whether we need to move into space, as has already been vocally expressed previously in the media, most famously by Stephen Hawking, well that would be the easy way out wouldn't it? Until we fix the issues we have with overcrowding, famine, poverty, widespread disease not to mention pollution...[the list is long], on this planet, then we cannot reasonably expect to move into space without committing the same errors there, on other planets or in the void. Besides, we will have already ruined our planet by the time we can move the general population into space, unless of course the rich all get to pay 20 million to get sent and the rest of us draw straws! so instead of focusing solely on that, we should put much more focus onto saving our planet first. Actually, scrub that last bit, I think this is a good idea!! We could make the rich spend 20 million to get relocated into space, and make sure that this was mostly targetted at the first world countries. We'd get rid of a lot of self-interested people this way!
"Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman
Ah typical slashdot, an article about the future of the planet/species/universe and about half of the comments are pessimistic dramatic black re-actions. We dont mean a thing, we suck, we are insignificant we should just kill our selfs, I have no friends... (oh wait I didnt mean to write that there, nobody should know about that) Not that it matters cause you dont have anyone around you who cares.
However for all the other people here, who are a bit more optimistic, believe in human kind and think we are important. Yeahh to them. I for one wont be gloomed into a depression. I like this planet, I like human kind and if possible we should spread out and find new frontiers to conquer. I love music, art, movies, books and whatnot, it is all one damn fine creation by inventive humans who want to better themself, even though it wont go without a war here and there, eventually we will get there.
Goodluck humankind I will be here watching you progress.
In fact, if a wandering spirit was an axis, on one end there would be people attracted to strange, wild and uninhabited places in the fringes, on the other - people attracted to known, populated and organized central places (such as government buildings)
Therefore, unless something drastic changes in the system that puts people on top, we ain't going nowhere. What it comes down to, is that running for governmental/ruling positions cannot be left to individual motivation, if we want to go anywhere. People who have the motivation to go to a ruling position have no real motivation for exploration, and it will be reflected in their policies. We would have had a colony on Mars AND Europa by know, with the money spent by the USA on war and weapons, in the last 10 years alone. Both are of equal benefit to the public, actually, and its not like the public is more interested in war than it is in Mars :).
If we aren't there to appreciate it implies that we 1) are there and/or 2) appreciate it.
Which begs the question: "If we aren't there and the universe is left without a single sentient species, would it be capable of giving a crap?"
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Aren't we forgetting a couple of things here?
1) The Fermi Paradox. Much as we want to think of ourselves as a universal community who just hasn't discovered its true neighbors yet, the simplest explanation of the Fermi Paradox (i.e., the one using the fewest number of assumptions) is that we are actually alone. Therefore, nothing we create is going to be appreciated by anyone, because there isn't anyone else out there as far as we can prove.
2) It is ALWAYS easier to destroy than to create. That is just an unfortunate law of physics (entropy, cybernetics, etc.) Right now, a group of people of size X working in concert can destroy a number of humans of size ~1000X (or larger). As that ratio gets even larger, the probability of us making it off our rock before we destroy ourselves is dropping like a...well...rock.
If you have any optimism at all, you aren't looking at the whole picture. (Or you're a theist.) I don't hate humanity, I just don't have much of that emotion called hope...
A threat to the entire human race might provide an excellent catalyst for us to stop fighting one another. It would be interesting to see if we really could work together in the face of such a threat, though a failure of that experiment would mean it can't be repeated :-)
The game ends when you build the space ship to Alpha Centauri!!
And to paraphrase Charles Krauthammer in a somewhat recent article, BECAUSE IT IS THERE.
Mod the parent up. And I second the airlock proposal ;-)
sig sig sig siggy sig
Pretty much, yes and yes. Most of the victims had at most a peripheral evolvement with gangs - as in kissing one of the boss'es girls, falling $20 short to pay for an occasional joint or being a gang member's brother. Nothing for which we would expect killed as adults.
From where is your assertion drawn? That is certainly NOT my experince, and I grew up in such a neighborhood. It wasn't the government that got me out, either.
I totally agree. Let lazy bastards get off their bums and build their own home - such as a tent or a wooden shack - in any area of their choosing and start planting vegetables on the grounds. That's what poor do around the world and they have way more self-respect that our government housing types. Maybe then we'll start focusing on eradicating poverty and crime everywhere rather than just in rich white neighborhoods.
Well, there's really not much crime or poverty in rich white neighborhoods. I think most of the problem is the middle-class areas which are being taken over by lower-class areas because the middle class is fast being taxed into extinction.
Can we ALL be employed washing each other's dishes?
No, someone has to cook, and someone has to wait tables, and someone has to deliver the produce, and someone has to grow the produce, etc, etc, etc.
Most kinds of jobs involve making stuff rather than being a servant for a rich guy (after all, really poor generally wash their own dishes).
Not in America. We USED to be a manufacturing country. Now we're a 'services' country. Most jobs do NOT involve making things anymore. The company I work for has over 80k employees worldwide...about 5-10k of which actually MAKE something. This is just one example.
It doesn't seem fair to blame someone for not getting a job when we made 75% of occupations - making furniture, working on assembly line, brewing beer, writing Java code - unavailable in US.
But 97.923% of jobs HAVEN'T been outsourced. Hey, if you can make up numbers, so can I.
Let's at least demand that interested workers are allowed to freely move to India or China and try their luck there.
Yes, because that's worked so well for us here, hasn't it? We should not let ANYONE 'freely move' here and we should not expect to get to 'freely move' wherever we want. You're living in FUD and it really doesn't have to be that way. Take a deep breath or two and repeat to yourself, "It's going to be ok. It's going to work out."
http://xkcd.com/386/