To be fair, we're pushing it all the time - in recent times sort of more than ever (though yes, more resources being directed at such pursuits instead of at, well, waste would be nice). And I don't think aiming outright at system-wide interferometer would get us far; there are many very juicy and much smaller (viable within foreseeable means) projects to be made.
If your description of the premise is accurate, it seems like a not very rational thing to do... (within constraints of this discussion of course, when remembering about the realities of our Universe) A technology to build interstellar ark is available and not put to use towards better remote sensing methods / sending relatively cheap & small probes, which could get at the destination in a fraction of the time when using the same propulsion tech?
Some years from now, be it years, decades, or centuries, when our ancestors are poking around other solar systems
^when choosing to say "when" (vs, "if"), I suspect it's better to also say "...centuries, or millenia" Because, generally, do you see humans being used to gather more detailed data about planets, et al. in our own system? (a backyard, really) Hell, we even observe the Earth remotely / from space quite a bit.
It was realised (by few) for quite some time how it seems possible - at the least, the physics didn't appear to work against our efforts too much. No such comfort with interstellar distances yet, and we can't assume it will come.
BTW, how's that inspiring part with manned lunar missions works so far?
But we can do that with the local one, too - two inner (relative to us) planets semi-frequently traversing our star, and there's also this one nearby which does that every few hours;)
Thing is: for vast, vast majority of "ELE" type events, it would be best to dig - to survive here on Earth (or rather "under" it). Because, except for very few, your typical ELE still doesn't make the Earth less hospitable (especially when saving as many humans as possible within achievable effort - don't be surprised with "think of the children" especially in such circumstances) in comparison to what's probably nearby.
Yes, a backup of sorts will be nice eventually - but this bonus won't be why we'll do it. Not with huge distances, not with physics of this Universe (we cannot assume some breakthrough, even if it would be very nice to have); almost dictating that colonization will be only via hops to nearest systems (and probably via autonomous embryo ships at that; barely any "full" living humans actually making the journey). Or even without much directed effort at all - just via spreading, over many millenia, also to Oort cloud of our system...which at some point makes "jumps" to Oort clouds of nearby systems relatively easy.
Paraphrasing slightly: so what if "you as a software" remember things which didn't exist in "you biological"? So what if you don't actually remember most of your own "biological memories"? You are still the one "remembering" them (and being convinced, falsely as is typical, that you remember really a lot & only the right things). You are even absolutely convinced of full uninterruption. ^how did you not see this?
Of course the scenarios are similar. Prove to me (or, well, to yourself) that you weren't taken over, last night, by some alien entity and that you are a human you were 24h ago.In fact, prove to me (and yourself) that you even existed 24h ago
The difference regarding preservation is that my version tries to not have arbitrary points saying "avoid too much change during this week (or whatever), lest in won't count as the same entity"
Also, the realities of our Universe very much suggest that such "you" as you'd like won't last - at the least you'd be outcompeted (didn't you forget about possible implications of good old evolutionary process?...). All the more reason why it looks suspiciuosly like a thing from mythology...in those there's usually some guardian (to be most generic) guaranteeing the paradise/etc.
You omit how gradual I see that shift, under what circumstances (augmented humans, more and more; the software also not jumping into the area of curious effects instantly) - I'd guess very much a transformation because we would start to transform ourselves much sooner (and possibly much further, when just looking at ourselves, than you'd consider "human"...), in lead up to the process. Yes, I see pre-school -> adult as a useful analogy - but not necessarily similar, especially not literally & actually; that's too limiting in the face of what is too unpredictable (all the rest here being mostly of "let's toy a bit with is this thing more likely than the other" kind). And I was saying from the start there is some continuity - but not full, it doesn't need to be if large part of wetware processes would be probably among the hardest to recreate and best to quickly discard anyway; changing us severely. Look at how much (it's certainly a lot) of our minds is determined by, essentially, an evolutionary baggage; it would be useless to model that (if only because of more efficient competition & because that competition might arrive sooner).
A thought experiment: imagine we do achieve a technology to make a perfect digital copy of your biological mind. And we make that copy (which, in a few days, owing to its ability of accessing many databases like they are a long term memory, as well as thanks to heavy streamlining of many processes, useless in its new "place", goes quite a long way towards...who knows what; basically instantly "diverges" widely, it even begins to melt is some inconceivable, to us, ways with other similar entities...despite "you biological" being convinced you/"it" wouldn't do so) By some freak accident a week later, your biological self gets severely brain damaged; you are still deeply convinced you are yourself (similarly to how those people are apparently convinced they can see - look what is the worth of such convictions about ourselves / how fragmented our "self" already is), but...your memories as well as your mental capacities are severely limited. Which one is you?
Which of those is your continuity? They both claim to be one. Only one has thought patterns and memories which to a very large degree overlap with "old you"... the other barely remembers its old life and thinks in ways barely conceivable to humans.
Maybe I should finally write it down in some attractive form (well, which probably means not in EN...). Though by that time I'll probably change my outlook at the above anyway...
What you're describing, in response to my request of showing continuity child -> adult, can be beautifully applied to the "non-pure" scenario I'm wondering about; at least the first paragraph. Because the second...no, you cannot say that. People do have memories which are most certainly false, and yet "certain", to the individual, to be real - things which you perceive as total deal-breakers, are already done by humans on some level. Furthermore, you basically say that continuity is when you're merely convinced that essentials of it have taken place - well, that's also an easy characteristic of the "cheating" scenario.
I personally wouldn't want to see it in the slightest equated with static existence, that's the point; things is, perhaps you specifically(*) (and folk mythologies - certainly) tend to put too strong focus on absolute preservation (how could you think so anyway with my constant emphasis on constant transformations of ourselves?). And creative thought is not enough; critical part is crucial... especially with the mishmash of ideas, large part of them evidently being a simple representation of primal fears and wishes, and despite some of ideas having great wisdom - still, usually not in folk understanding, the one that fully matters.
(*)then why insistance on a long enough period which absolutely needs to maintain extremelly high / high enough (whatever it would be) level of similarity? Why do you need to limit you "posthuman self" so severely?
And it wouldn't be a model; more a hypothetical (meaning also - of a type unknown to us, that's unavoidable; look at history of major progress) transformation. Think of it more in analogy of post-pubescent changes to oneself seen from a perspective of pre-schooler; they are very much completelly outside of scope of the latter, as far as he/she is concerned. Still quite "Big"(tm). Those other "Big Things"(tm) are a very common dream for humanity since who knows how long; also since who knows how long percieved as almost within grasp / with the salvation approaching within "our generation" - how common it is almost seems like another survival adaptation of the mind. With extremelly poor record of success, together with overoptimistic schedules of achieving it...
Show me the continuity. No, really, demonstrate how a child -> adult has a continuity by similarly strict rules (for one counterexample I can already mention: I was basically without home for the first 1+ years of my life, about which I learned by chance two decades later - and yet this hasn't left any concious sense of continuity; there are even things I rediscover in my memory from times when I was dozen+ years of age - very concious, I thought then - but when looking now...; "immortal us" might even disregard similarly early, for them, memories of "old life"...). BTW I didn't say there's absolutely no transition & entites are separate (espetially considering there will be probably some augmentation of humans going on when the effects might start to give something...curious) / "clearly", etc. - just that it doesn't strictly matter to such a degree (in fact - humans often ignore how it already means a bit less in determining "self")
And I assure you, our consciousnesses won't notice that they're dead.
I was referencing my word choice of "childish" - and I was asserting something quite the contrary, something which you describe after "Hmm, sorry, I don't agree..." Such similarities between what you (and many other) seem to wish for and for what mythologies wish for, makes me...extremelly cautious. BTW, it's a bit funny how "static" they are in the end - in a way, a true death.
Generally, remember that for me it's a suspition of how things might work, more or less (not even how I wish they would work - I do have similarly, well, childish wishes, too...). Also because it probably makes more sense, because it might be most useful, most natural (for what's natural in perhaps probable future)...and maybe a bit inevitable. If anything, we can surely say that what people wish for to happen in distant future (and a wish for uninterrupted eternal life is among the oldest and most universal ones...doesn't seem to be helping it) didn't exactly have much in common with our advances / with their specific form (if a development close to predicted one did happen; I like to mention this image - hey, we can build them: just take a Harrier, remove wings & canopy...so why won't we?) Heck, if one were on a quest of finding just a few constants in history, the above would be a good candidate.
I'm sure those (usually / always quite horrible, so far) mobile phones for the elderly are also available in Japan...if anybody still wanted to make calls.
You know, those looking a bit like simple alphanumeric calculators, with enormous buttons.
Then you concede that you have died many times already... you have very much lost "I, me, self" (look at a child that is 1 month old and apply the same rigor) few times and, depending on your age, might do it still. If anything, that is human (without even getting near biological death), that's how our mind works on a very basic level; and some new, different types of existence could easily be seen as an improvement, in some parts.
Maybe such choice of word there was not appropriate, yes - but it's hard for me to look much different at what seems to very much originate from most mythologies and their folk idea of eternal life... (which also ignores how drastically we change throghout life, incidentally)
Also, there is something very wrong with saying "meteors in their orbits" (which just shows how much you are into all of this) - check for yourself what, it shouldn't take long.
It's not about vacuuming the neighborhood (by that measure even Jupiter doesn't count), but whether or not the nearby debris is dominated by the gravitation of the body in question.
(was supposed to be "as hoped for" in the first quotey)
It can be easily outside of the context, in the meaning of what people expect it to look like - especially with some kind of software/etc. which carries "us" further. Look at it like at a distinction between the level of experience in a newborn and 10 year old kid. Then look at 30 years. And 80, when dementia might kick in too. There's already (always was like that) much, much less individual continuity than what peple manage to convince themselves of (in fact, your age, place of residence or peer pressures at which you were exposed during last decade tell more about you than a look at how you were at some early stage). The moment you take a "snapshot" (I don't think it would look like that) would be the moment when the "immortal" existence starts to diverge widely from how "true biological you" would look like at a given future time, anyway. It's just natural and expected. That's also why simultaneous existence (even of several) "copies" doesn't really matter so much...though it is uncomfortable if one cheerishes the idea of an unshakable self.
But why that "unpleasantness" would even matter for the biological me? Why the dreamlike experience would be a requirement? How can some gradual emergence of an entity that's in very intimate relation to me, without actually ending my own existance, harm me? Could certainly give more meaning to what I am / "was"... (after a while)
Children are an interesting example, because they demonstrate how the rules are changing already; how what I imagine is already hapenning in some very limited way (though such "AI" wouldn't be quite an equivalent of course). Basically, we're hung up on passing to our children two things - 1) DNA & 2) cultural context (to use the most generic term). For a long, long time that combination was working great (still is in many places) - on one hand, tried and true societal context enhanced future survival of your DNA; on the other - who else can actually listen best to what you say & take it further than your offspring?
But - it has its limits (what can you tell me about your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother? You know, the one from the side of you father, then grandmother, great-grandmother, great-great-grandfather, g-g-great-grandfather, g-g-g-great-grandmother, g-g-g-g-great-grandfather, g-g-g-g-g-great-grandfather, g-g-g-g-g-g-great-grandmother, g-g-g-g-g-g-g-great-grandfather. Basics would do, like century, continent, language, number of children), passing of cultural context via your children is no longer the most efficient way. Artists or leaders of various kinds discovered it already in recent (relatively speaking) centuries. I think it can and does happen to more of us; over time in ever fuller way. With ever more advanced software looking at it.
Sure, such hypothetical entities (useful to think about them as self-aware history stats/art & engineering databases (among many other things, for sure) perhaps? Especially since there's bound to be some..."joining") would work on entirely different level than us - well, that's a bit expected in the future history of intelligence / conciousness in this Universe.
Yes, perhaps it doesn't give undisturbed conciousness in quite the "desired" way (as imagined in, essentially, religious style) - but so what? As I said, strong perception of its presence between various stages of life is an illusion already. Would be actually quite uninteresting, boring...useless. Look at it as a posthumanist approach without beeing terrified of death at the same time, without applying brakes of childish wishes.
On the bright side (judging by few sites displaying several variants of one photograph, each portraying one type of color blindness) - there's a high chance that the way you see the world is interesting enough to make Hollywood films be color graded similarly.
To some degree, sure - but the more we venture outside LEO, the less it should matter. Probably if a deep space emergency was so time & guidance critical, better heatshield (remember, useful only for very few destinations) would rarely contribute.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, we're pushing it all the time - in recent times sort of more than ever (though yes, more resources being directed at such pursuits instead of at, well, waste would be nice). And I don't think aiming outright at system-wide interferometer would get us far; there are many very juicy and much smaller (viable within foreseeable means) projects to be made.
If your description of the premise is accurate, it seems like a not very rational thing to do... (within constraints of this discussion of course, when remembering about the realities of our Universe) A technology to build interstellar ark is available and not put to use towards better remote sensing methods / sending relatively cheap & small probes, which could get at the destination in a fraction of the time when using the same propulsion tech?
...or demons.
I don't know; humans weren't supposed to exist on the antipodes, remember? (admiteddly, how they were percieved as less advanced helped)
Some years from now, be it years, decades, or centuries, when our ancestors are poking around other solar systems
^when choosing to say "when" (vs, "if"), I suspect it's better to also say "...centuries, or millenia"
Because, generally, do you see humans being used to gather more detailed data about planets, et al. in our own system? (a backyard, really) Hell, we even observe the Earth remotely / from space quite a bit.
It was realised (by few) for quite some time how it seems possible - at the least, the physics didn't appear to work against our efforts too much. No such comfort with interstellar distances yet, and we can't assume it will come.
BTW, how's that inspiring part with manned lunar missions works so far?
But we can do that with the local one, too - two inner (relative to us) planets semi-frequently traversing our star, and there's also this one nearby which does that every few hours ;)
Thing is: for vast, vast majority of "ELE" type events, it would be best to dig - to survive here on Earth (or rather "under" it). Because, except for very few, your typical ELE still doesn't make the Earth less hospitable (especially when saving as many humans as possible within achievable effort - don't be surprised with "think of the children" especially in such circumstances) in comparison to what's probably nearby.
Yes, a backup of sorts will be nice eventually - but this bonus won't be why we'll do it. Not with huge distances, not with physics of this Universe (we cannot assume some breakthrough, even if it would be very nice to have); almost dictating that colonization will be only via hops to nearest systems (and probably via autonomous embryo ships at that; barely any "full" living humans actually making the journey). Or even without much directed effort at all - just via spreading, over many millenia, also to Oort cloud of our system...which at some point makes "jumps" to Oort clouds of nearby systems relatively easy.
Imagine how Ceres feels! Same horrible fate as Pluto, but a bit sooner so nobody cares anymore.
What does that make Theia proto-Earth?...
Brain-computer interface really taking up via to emos?
This is not the augmented / towards transhuman future I imagined...
Paraphrasing slightly: so what if "you as a software" remember things which didn't exist in "you biological"? So what if you don't actually remember most of your own "biological memories"? You are still the one "remembering" them (and being convinced, falsely as is typical, that you remember really a lot & only the right things). You are even absolutely convinced of full uninterruption.
^how did you not see this?
Of course the scenarios are similar. Prove to me (or, well, to yourself) that you weren't taken over, last night, by some alien entity and that you are a human you were 24h ago. In fact, prove to me (and yourself) that you even existed 24h ago
The difference regarding preservation is that my version tries to not have arbitrary points saying "avoid too much change during this week (or whatever), lest in won't count as the same entity"
Also, the realities of our Universe very much suggest that such "you" as you'd like won't last - at the least you'd be outcompeted (didn't you forget about possible implications of good old evolutionary process?...). All the more reason why it looks suspiciuosly like a thing from mythology...in those there's usually some guardian (to be most generic) guaranteeing the paradise/etc.
You omit how gradual I see that shift, under what circumstances (augmented humans, more and more; the software also not jumping into the area of curious effects instantly) - I'd guess very much a transformation because we would start to transform ourselves much sooner (and possibly much further, when just looking at ourselves, than you'd consider "human"...), in lead up to the process.
Yes, I see pre-school -> adult as a useful analogy - but not necessarily similar, especially not literally & actually; that's too limiting in the face of what is too unpredictable (all the rest here being mostly of "let's toy a bit with is this thing more likely than the other" kind). And I was saying from the start there is some continuity - but not full, it doesn't need to be if large part of wetware processes would be probably among the hardest to recreate and best to quickly discard anyway; changing us severely. Look at how much (it's certainly a lot) of our minds is determined by, essentially, an evolutionary baggage; it would be useless to model that (if only because of more efficient competition & because that competition might arrive sooner).
A thought experiment: imagine we do achieve a technology to make a perfect digital copy of your biological mind. And we make that copy (which, in a few days, owing to its ability of accessing many databases like they are a long term memory, as well as thanks to heavy streamlining of many processes, useless in its new "place", goes quite a long way towards...who knows what; basically instantly "diverges" widely, it even begins to melt is some inconceivable, to us, ways with other similar entities...despite "you biological" being convinced you/"it" wouldn't do so)
By some freak accident a week later, your biological self gets severely brain damaged; you are still deeply convinced you are yourself (similarly to how those people are apparently convinced they can see - look what is the worth of such convictions about ourselves / how fragmented our "self" already is), but...your memories as well as your mental capacities are severely limited.
Which one is you?
Which of those is your continuity? They both claim to be one. Only one has thought patterns and memories which to a very large degree overlap with "old you"... the other barely remembers its old life and thinks in ways barely conceivable to humans.
Maybe I should finally write it down in some attractive form (well, which probably means not in EN...). Though by that time I'll probably change my outlook at the above anyway...
What you're describing, in response to my request of showing continuity child -> adult, can be beautifully applied to the "non-pure" scenario I'm wondering about; at least the first paragraph. Because the second...no, you cannot say that. People do have memories which are most certainly false, and yet "certain", to the individual, to be real - things which you perceive as total deal-breakers, are already done by humans on some level. Furthermore, you basically say that continuity is when you're merely convinced that essentials of it have taken place - well, that's also an easy characteristic of the "cheating" scenario.
I personally wouldn't want to see it in the slightest equated with static existence, that's the point; things is, perhaps you specifically(*) (and folk mythologies - certainly) tend to put too strong focus on absolute preservation (how could you think so anyway with my constant emphasis on constant transformations of ourselves?). And creative thought is not enough; critical part is crucial... especially with the mishmash of ideas, large part of them evidently being a simple representation of primal fears and wishes, and despite some of ideas having great wisdom - still, usually not in folk understanding, the one that fully matters.
(*)then why insistance on a long enough period which absolutely needs to maintain extremelly high / high enough (whatever it would be) level of similarity? Why do you need to limit you "posthuman self" so severely?
And it wouldn't be a model; more a hypothetical (meaning also - of a type unknown to us, that's unavoidable; look at history of major progress) transformation. Think of it more in analogy of post-pubescent changes to oneself seen from a perspective of pre-schooler; they are very much completelly outside of scope of the latter, as far as he/she is concerned. Still quite "Big"(tm).
Those other "Big Things"(tm) are a very common dream for humanity since who knows how long; also since who knows how long percieved as almost within grasp / with the salvation approaching within "our generation" - how common it is almost seems like another survival adaptation of the mind. With extremelly poor record of success, together with overoptimistic schedules of achieving it...
Show me the continuity. No, really, demonstrate how a child -> adult has a continuity by similarly strict rules (for one counterexample I can already mention: I was basically without home for the first 1+ years of my life, about which I learned by chance two decades later - and yet this hasn't left any concious sense of continuity; there are even things I rediscover in my memory from times when I was dozen+ years of age - very concious, I thought then - but when looking now...; "immortal us" might even disregard similarly early, for them, memories of "old life"...). BTW I didn't say there's absolutely no transition & entites are separate (espetially considering there will be probably some augmentation of humans going on when the effects might start to give something...curious) / "clearly", etc. - just that it doesn't strictly matter to such a degree (in fact - humans often ignore how it already means a bit less in determining "self")
And I assure you, our consciousnesses won't notice that they're dead.
I was referencing my word choice of "childish" - and I was asserting something quite the contrary, something which you describe after "Hmm, sorry, I don't agree..." Such similarities between what you (and many other) seem to wish for and for what mythologies wish for, makes me...extremelly cautious. BTW, it's a bit funny how "static" they are in the end - in a way, a true death.
Generally, remember that for me it's a suspition of how things might work, more or less (not even how I wish they would work - I do have similarly, well, childish wishes, too...). Also because it probably makes more sense, because it might be most useful, most natural (for what's natural in perhaps probable future)...and maybe a bit inevitable.
If anything, we can surely say that what people wish for to happen in distant future (and a wish for uninterrupted eternal life is among the oldest and most universal ones...doesn't seem to be helping it) didn't exactly have much in common with our advances / with their specific form (if a development close to predicted one did happen; I like to mention this image - hey, we can build them: just take a Harrier, remove wings & canopy...so why won't we?)
Heck, if one were on a quest of finding just a few constants in history, the above would be a good candidate.
I'm sure those (usually / always quite horrible, so far) mobile phones for the elderly are also available in Japan...if anybody still wanted to make calls.
You know, those looking a bit like simple alphanumeric calculators, with enormous buttons.
Then you concede that you have died many times already... you have very much lost "I, me, self" (look at a child that is 1 month old and apply the same rigor) few times and, depending on your age, might do it still. If anything, that is human (without even getting near biological death), that's how our mind works on a very basic level; and some new, different types of existence could easily be seen as an improvement, in some parts.
Maybe such choice of word there was not appropriate, yes - but it's hard for me to look much different at what seems to very much originate from most mythologies and their folk idea of eternal life... (which also ignores how drastically we change throghout life, incidentally)
Also, there is something very wrong with saying "meteors in their orbits" (which just shows how much you are into all of this) - check for yourself what, it shouldn't take long.
It's not about vacuuming the neighborhood (by that measure even Jupiter doesn't count), but whether or not the nearby debris is dominated by the gravitation of the body in question.
(was supposed to be "as hoped for" in the first quotey)
It can be easily outside of the context, in the meaning of what people expect it to look like - especially with some kind of software/etc. which carries "us" further. Look at it like at a distinction between the level of experience in a newborn and 10 year old kid. Then look at 30 years. And 80, when dementia might kick in too. There's already (always was like that) much, much less individual continuity than what peple manage to convince themselves of (in fact, your age, place of residence or peer pressures at which you were exposed during last decade tell more about you than a look at how you were at some early stage). The moment you take a "snapshot" (I don't think it would look like that) would be the moment when the "immortal" existence starts to diverge widely from how "true biological you" would look like at a given future time, anyway. It's just natural and expected. That's also why simultaneous existence (even of several) "copies" doesn't really matter so much...though it is uncomfortable if one cheerishes the idea of an unshakable self.
But why that "unpleasantness" would even matter for the biological me? Why the dreamlike experience would be a requirement? How can some gradual emergence of an entity that's in very intimate relation to me, without actually ending my own existance, harm me? Could certainly give more meaning to what I am / "was"... (after a while)
Children are an interesting example, because they demonstrate how the rules are changing already; how what I imagine is already hapenning in some very limited way (though such "AI" wouldn't be quite an equivalent of course). Basically, we're hung up on passing to our children two things - 1) DNA & 2) cultural context (to use the most generic term). For a long, long time that combination was working great (still is in many places) - on one hand, tried and true societal context enhanced future survival of your DNA; on the other - who else can actually listen best to what you say & take it further than your offspring?
But - it has its limits (what can you tell me about your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother? You know, the one from the side of you father, then grandmother, great-grandmother, great-great-grandfather, g-g-great-grandfather, g-g-g-great-grandmother, g-g-g-g-great-grandfather, g-g-g-g-g-great-grandfather, g-g-g-g-g-g-great-grandmother, g-g-g-g-g-g-g-great-grandfather. Basics would do, like century, continent, language, number of children), passing of cultural context via your children is no longer the most efficient way. Artists or leaders of various kinds discovered it already in recent (relatively speaking) centuries. I think it can and does happen to more of us; over time in ever fuller way. With ever more advanced software looking at it.
Sure, such hypothetical entities (useful to think about them as self-aware history stats/art & engineering databases (among many other things, for sure) perhaps? Especially since there's bound to be some..."joining") would work on entirely different level than us - well, that's a bit expected in the future history of intelligence / conciousness in this Universe.
Yes, perhaps it doesn't give undisturbed conciousness in quite the "desired" way (as imagined in, essentially, religious style) - but so what? As I said, strong perception of its presence between various stages of life is an illusion already. Would be actually quite uninteresting, boring...useless. Look at it as a posthumanist approach without beeing terrified of death at the same time, without applying brakes of childish wishes.
"I will google that on bing" (I've seen it somewhere)
Wouldn't be the weirdest...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reversed_Earth_map_1000x500.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_map
We blame the idiot? How many "runaway acceleration" media circuses were about blaming the idiot?
On the bright side (judging by few sites displaying several variants of one photograph, each portraying one type of color blindness) - there's a high chance that the way you see the world is interesting enough to make Hollywood films be color graded similarly.
To some degree, sure - but the more we venture outside LEO, the less it should matter. Probably if a deep space emergency was so time & guidance critical, better heatshield (remember, useful only for very few destinations) would rarely contribute.
Not many flying boats nowadays.