Re:7 centuries isn't feasible for humans
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 1
In what changing (as they will certainly change in 7 centuries) would be a problem?
We change, too.
Changing is not a problem.
Re:Easier way to colonize the universe
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 1
Hello Aging_Newbie,
the greatest nations, of more than 1 million inhabitants, are relatively recent phenomena in the history of humanity. "The people" in antiquity, especially if led politically, is close to an Ark in order of magnitude (50 000 people). It is similar to an ancient city. Those people did not desintegrate with time : we are their heirs. Thus why the Ark?
Moreover, a terrestrial link is preserved: Ark is not an insulated island, even if communication is differed by several years. As I mentioned in the article:
"Compared to what the Past can deliver, the Ark would embark the whole of terrestrial memories which should represent some 1E20 bytes in magnitude, that is the whole of what is currently registered on paper, magnetic or optical media, with or without repetition, everywhere and in all languages. The Ark will also have access to a "differed present" thanks to the radioelectric link with the Earth, all the more differed since the Ark is moving away. A laser link could be imagined, so as to minimize dispersion, in the infrared band which would get less noise from the plasma emissions. For a laser power of 1 MW at lambda = 1 micron, the bandwidth would be of magnitude of 10 MB/s at 1 ly and 100 KB/s at 10 ly, similar to an average internet link."
About the fact that all our eggs are in one basket, I did not mention it in the article but that belonged to the initial idea. One can imagine a flotilla of arks. Possibly to make them smaller, eg 6 X 6 km instead of 10 x 10 and make 3 of them (that is about the same quantity of matter). Such 3 arks would form 3 independent nations and each one should be able to accomodate the entirety of the population of both others in the event of critical problems. Density is reasonable: 100 people / km . This can easily triple at times, and then wait for demographic adjustments.
If not, the solution of frozen gametes cannot work, as you said. Or... an Ark is needed:). A gamete, that make one child. Already, the problem, it is that in order to transform the gamete into a child, a woman must carry it. An artificial uterus, it is like strategy 0, a futuristic solution "in the long term". Then, a child should be raised, which claims the care of adults. One cannot exceed one adult for 10 children, in order of magnitude. To maintain these adults, it is necessary that they can reproduce. And to raise correctly a child (those of "watchers" or all those which are given birth at arrival), a rich environment is needed, unless considering that the valiant heirs as of the Earth can be treated as laboratory mouses. Thus not a jamjar nor a simple space cargo. Something like an Ark, therefore.
One can imagine hyper sophisticated androids raising the children. But if we are able to manufacture such wonders, then I ask it to you: why at all sending the human ones in flesh and bone when we already can reproduce moral beings in metal? Either the robot is morally identical to the man, at the point of being able to take care of a child from 0 to 18 years, and in that case it is *fully* human (or then explain me...). Either it is a stupid robot and then I would not entrust my dog to him...
Slashdot Mirror
In what changing (as they will certainly change in 7 centuries) would be a problem? We change, too. Changing is not a problem.
Hello Aging_Newbie, the greatest nations, of more than 1 million inhabitants, are relatively recent phenomena in the history of humanity. "The people" in antiquity, especially if led politically, is close to an Ark in order of magnitude (50 000 people). It is similar to an ancient city. Those people did not desintegrate with time : we are their heirs. Thus why the Ark? Moreover, a terrestrial link is preserved: Ark is not an insulated island, even if communication is differed by several years. As I mentioned in the article: "Compared to what the Past can deliver, the Ark would embark the whole of terrestrial memories which should represent some 1E20 bytes in magnitude, that is the whole of what is currently registered on paper, magnetic or optical media, with or without repetition, everywhere and in all languages. The Ark will also have access to a "differed present" thanks to the radioelectric link with the Earth, all the more differed since the Ark is moving away. A laser link could be imagined, so as to minimize dispersion, in the infrared band which would get less noise from the plasma emissions. For a laser power of 1 MW at lambda = 1 micron, the bandwidth would be of magnitude of 10 MB/s at 1 ly and 100 KB/s at 10 ly, similar to an average internet link." About the fact that all our eggs are in one basket, I did not mention it in the article but that belonged to the initial idea. One can imagine a flotilla of arks. Possibly to make them smaller, eg 6 X 6 km instead of 10 x 10 and make 3 of them (that is about the same quantity of matter). Such 3 arks would form 3 independent nations and each one should be able to accomodate the entirety of the population of both others in the event of critical problems. Density is reasonable: 100 people / km . This can easily triple at times, and then wait for demographic adjustments. If not, the solution of frozen gametes cannot work, as you said. Or... an Ark is needed :). A gamete, that make one child. Already, the problem, it is that in order to transform the gamete into a child, a woman must carry it. An artificial uterus, it is like strategy 0, a futuristic solution "in the long term". Then, a child should be raised, which claims the care of adults. One cannot exceed one adult for 10 children, in order of magnitude. To maintain these adults, it is necessary that they can reproduce. And to raise correctly a child (those of "watchers" or all those which are given birth at arrival), a rich environment is needed, unless considering that the valiant heirs as of the Earth can be treated as laboratory mouses. Thus not a jamjar nor a simple space cargo. Something like an Ark, therefore.
One can imagine hyper sophisticated androids raising the children. But if we are able to manufacture such wonders, then I ask it to you: why at all sending the human ones in flesh and bone when we already can reproduce moral beings in metal? Either the robot is morally identical to the man, at the point of being able to take care of a child from 0 to 18 years, and in that case it is *fully* human (or then explain me...). Either it is a stupid robot and then I would not entrust my dog to him...
Yes once need to send probes before. "The way to Epsilon Eridani will serve as a textbook case to evaluate SII strategy."