Dystopias are reactionary!

[Raphael]

As for space colonization, I believe if it's technically possible at all it'll happen. In fact, I think it'll be possible at some point, but I'm grateful we're not quite there yet; Elon Musk's Mars colony looks like a horrible prospect.

"First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing Elon Musk on Mars and not returning him safely to the earth."

[Ares Land]

As for space colonization, I believe if it's technically possible at all it'll happen. In fact, I think it'll be possible at some point, but I'm grateful we're not quite there yet; Elon Musk's Mars colony looks like a horrible prospect.

"First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing Elon Musk on Mars and not returning him safely to the earth."

Now that's an excellent idea!

[WeepingElf]

To me space colonization is necessary if humanity is to survive in the long term because humanity will inevitably render itself extinct on Earth, but if humans live in space and/or on other worlds, humans can survive there, and can once things settle down on Earth after any human extinction event on Earth can return to Earth and effectively terraform it from whatever state humans left it in before.

I don't think so -- I don't see humanity rendering itself extinct.

I don't see how we'd even get to the point where Mars looks better than the Earth; I don't think even a dinosaur-killer asteroid would get us there.

We could certainly make ourselves really miserable -- but extinct? I don't really think so.

Yep - people vastly underestimate the hostility of places like Mars. We can't run down Earth so badly that it will be worse, and an extinction of our species is not likely in the foreseeable future.

As for space colonization, I believe if it's technically possible at all it'll happen. In fact, I think it'll be possible at some point, but I'm grateful we're not quite there yet; Elon Musk's Mars colony looks like a horrible prospect.

Sure. Space colonization, if possible at all, will likely happen because exploring and conquering new terrain seems to be human nature; but we are not there yet, and as I said yesterday, it offers no solution to our current problems.

[zompist]

As for space colonization, I believe if it's technically possible at all it'll happen. In fact, I think it'll be possible at some point, but I'm grateful we're not quite there yet; Elon Musk's Mars colony looks like a horrible prospect.

Elon Musk isn't going to have a Mars colony. Maciej Cieglowski is essential reading here— both his two long articles on Mars and his dissection of Artemis. Also the Wienersmiths' A City on Mars.

In brief: both Mars and the new lunar program require— to start with— a technology that does not exist and is extremely unlikely: refueling in space. SpaceX's rockets use liquid oxygen which must be kept at -207° C. (Absolute zero is -273.15° C.) To make even the plans for the moon, this technology would have to be in effect today.

Then there's the problem that Mars is a terrifying hellhole, and the logistics of manned interplanetary flight are unknown. The space station works as well as it does because it can be controlled and resupplied from Earth; this is impossible with a flight to Mars. The problems may be solveable, but it will be a matter of trying the latest technology, analyzing it for years, trying again.

To put it another way, the laws of man may not apply to Musk, but the laws of physics do.

And to put it yet another way, why aren't we colonizing Antarctica? It's a hundred times easier, with no reliance on magic technology.

[Raphael]

Thank you for the background info, zompist!

To put it another way, the laws of man may not apply to Musk, but the laws of physics do.

Now I'm reminded of something I saw in a not-too-deep German comic strip featuring anthropomorphic sharks decades ago:

Two of the sharks were meeting on the seafloor:

SHARK 1: (holding a cigarette) Hey, can you give me a light?

SHARK 2: What, you mean, under water? That's impossible! It's against the laws of nature!

SHARK 1: Oh, don't talk to me about laws now! Just give me a light!

SHARK 2: ..... OK..... ..... ..... ..... ...but make sure that no one's watching us!

***----

I wouldn't be surprised if Musk turned out to have a similar attitude.

[Travis B.]

To me space colonization is more than let's-go-to-Mars (which might not even be the greatest of ideas even). That ignores building space stations, freestanding (e.g. at a Lagrange point) or on the surface of asteroids. That ignores building the infrastructure and means to mine asteroids (which would almost certainly be automated) and build things in space independent of what little we can push up the gravity well of Earth. There is a lot that would need to get done before we could even seriously consider colonizing Mars. And yes, simply getting the first human colony on Mars could take centuries of work, if that is something we want to do in the first place.

[Raphael]

That ignores building the infrastructure and means to mine asteroids (which would almost certainly be automated) and build things in space independent of what little we can push up the gravity well of Earth.

Now I'm reminded of something I posted in the old AI thread a while ago:

A while ago, I had an idea for a somewhat new-ish take on the classic standard robot horror story.

It wouldn't be about anything like today's LLMs, more like a kind of an extremely advanced version of SHRDLU. The idea would be a limited intelligence software programmed with an encyclopedic knowledge of math, physics, chemistry, engineering, and geosciences, which would be able to autonomously navigate all kinds of machines through a completely lifeless environment, such as interplanetary space or the surface of a lifeless planet, and even use those machines to manipulate such an environment. But it wouldn't be able to handle places with life in them, because such environments would be just too complex for its programming.

In the scenario, machines running the software would be used to, first, explore the Solar System, and then do all kinds of other things around it - until all of the Solar System except for Earth itself would be effectively colonized by machines running the software. And then, eventually, the machines would decide that they were really annoyed by the fact that, out of the entire Solar System, only Earth was beyond their reach, and they would try to end that anomaly by destroying all life on Earth...

[linguistcat]

I don't think so -- I don't see humanity rendering itself extinct.

I don't think we can right now, but we certainly could in the geologically near future. Not to mention, there are worse things than mass extinction level meteors out there.

I don't see how we'd even get to the point where Mars looks better than the Earth; I don't think even a dinosaur-killer asteroid would get us there.

We don't need Mars to look better than Earth-with-human-caused-climate-change, we just need it to be habitable if we're talking long term (read: geologic timeline) survival, if something outright destroys Earth. This isn't a bet against "Oops, we made things too hot or cold and entire swatches of our planet are uninhabitable." It a bet against the Earth being sterilized or hit by a minor planetoid. The best way to get to that point for when we need it is to start changing things now, or very soon.

That said, Elon just wants clout and doesn't ACTUALLY care about humanity, as far as I can tell from his general actions. At best, he wants to look like the savior of humanity to stroke his ego.

[Raphael]

As for space colonization, I believe if it's technically possible at all it'll happen. In fact, I think it'll be possible at some point, but I'm grateful we're not quite there yet; Elon Musk's Mars colony looks like a horrible prospect.

Elon Musk isn't going to have a Mars colony. Maciej Cieglowski is essential reading here— both his two long articles on Mars and his dissection of Artemis.

Now I wonder how many of the big investors throwing money at Musk and how many of the tech journalists stenographing their and his words would be able to read Cieglowski's main pieces and, without the help of an AI or an unpaid intern, sum up the main points in their words.

[zompist]

I don't think so -- I don't see humanity rendering itself extinct.

I don't think we can right now, but we certainly could in the geologically near future. Not to mention, there are worse things than mass extinction level meteors out there.

Like what?

Srsly, life has prospered on Earth for 4 billion years. The Cretaceous–Paleogene event was certainly dramatic, but didn't ruin the planet or its biosphere.

Admittedly, the sun is getting hotter and Earth may be uninhabitable a billion years from now. That's a long time. For comparison, all complex life appeared only half a billiion years ago. It is not something we need to address right now.

Mars is not habitable with current technology. Musk will not retire on Mars to the music of his fanboys harvesting cotton on his Martian plantation. If Earth is destroyed by the Vogons in 2100, any base on Mars will die off too.

Maybe not true for 2900! But to get to that point requires solving our problems on Earth.

[WeepingElf]

I don't think so -- I don't see humanity rendering itself extinct.

I don't think we can right now, but we certainly could in the geologically near future. Not to mention, there are worse things than mass extinction level meteors out there.

Like what?

Srsly, life has prospered on Earth for 4 billion years. The Cretaceous–Paleogene event was certainly dramatic, but didn't ruin the planet or its biosphere.

Admittedly, the sun is getting hotter and Earth may be uninhabitable a billion years from now. That's a long time. For comparison, all complex life appeared only half a billiion years ago. It is not something we need to address right now.

Mars is not habitable with current technology. Musk will not retire on Mars to the music of his fanboys harvesting cotton on his Martian plantation. If Earth is destroyed by the Vogons in 2100, any base on Mars will die off too.

Maybe not true for 2900! But to get to that point requires solving our problems on Earth.

Precisely. Space colonization is not a viable answer to our current problems - rather, in order to colonize space, we must solve our current problems first, or the High Frontier remains closed. And the fact that there is not a shred of evidence of alien visitors on Earth any time in the past may mean that interstellar travel is impossible - even to the most advanced civilizations. Or they have learned to clean up behind them (which we also should learn in order to stay).

[bradrn]

Thank you for the background info, zompist!

To put it another way, the laws of man may not apply to Musk, but the laws of physics do.

Now I'm reminded of something I saw in a not-too-deep German comic strip featuring anthropomorphic sharks decades ago:

Two of the sharks were meeting on the seafloor:

SHARK 1: (holding a cigarette) Hey, can you give me a light?

SHARK 2: What, you mean, under water? That's impossible! It's against the laws of nature!

SHARK 1: Oh, don't talk to me about laws now! Just give me a light!

SHARK 2: ..... OK..... ..... ..... ..... ...but make sure that no one's watching us!

***----

I wouldn't be surprised if Musk turned out to have a similar attitude.

There’s also Malcolm Turbull’s (in)famous statement: “ The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”.

[Ares Land]

As for space colonization, I believe if it's technically possible at all it'll happen. In fact, I think it'll be possible at some point, but I'm grateful we're not quite there yet; Elon Musk's Mars colony looks like a horrible prospect.

Elon Musk isn't going to have a Mars colony. Maciej Cieglowski is essential reading here— both his two long articles on Mars and his dissection of Artemis. Also the Wienersmiths' A City on Mars.

I entirely agree, and I second the rec for A City On Mars. And I do think the universe is really doing us a favor on this one.

I'm still a little sad Artemis turned out a failure. It makes me wonder why we're suddenly unable to do much in space anymore; it may be part of the problem is that it's science for science's sake, with little opportunity to make a profit.
SpaceX is rather disappointing too; but then Musk has a talent for turning technological gold to shit.

And to put it yet another way, why aren't we colonizing Antarctica? It's a hundred times easier, with no reliance on magic technology.

In a certain sense, we are; OK, not Antarctica, but we're making a lot more use of the less-hospitable parts of the planet. There's large-scale farming in the Gobi Desert, also Dubai and various crazy megaprojects in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Which is another reason why I'd rather we wait a few generations on space colonization. If the model is Dubai, well, I think I'll pass.

To me space colonization is more than let's-go-to-Mars (which might not even be the greatest of ideas even). That ignores building space stations, freestanding (e.g. at a Lagrange point) or on the surface of asteroids. That ignores building the infrastructure and means to mine asteroids (which would almost certainly be automated) and build things in space independent of what little we can push up the gravity well of Earth. There is a lot that would need to get done before we could even seriously consider colonizing Mars. And yes, simply getting the first human colony on Mars could take centuries of work, if that is something we want to do in the first place.

I also agree; and yes, I think Lagrange point or Earth orbit colonies make a lot more sense (even though it's a very counter-intuitive point.)

[Raphael]

but then Musk has a talent for turning technological gold to shit.

Not to mention a talent for turning technological shit into gold for himself.

[WeepingElf]

And to put it yet another way, why aren't we colonizing Antarctica? It's a hundred times easier, with no reliance on magic technology.

The absence of major settlements in Antarctica or on the ocean floor tells us something about the infeasibility of space colonization, I think. Both are far easier to reach than even the Moon, and much more hospitable than either the Moon or Mars - yet, people don't settle there because they are bad enough. Antarctica is cold, and dark half of the year; the ocean floor is cold, dark and of course also very wet. People don't like to live in cold, dark and wet places; and it is hard to grow crops in Antarctica or on the ocean floor, settlements there would depend on food imports.

[Raphael]

People don't like to live in cold, dark and wet places;

Aren't you and me both from the northern half of Germany?

[Travis B.]

The real problem with the ocean floor is not that it is cold, dark, or wet but rather that it is at very high pressure, which is harder to deal with than very low pressure (as is the case with space).

[WeepingElf]

The real problem with the ocean floor is not that it is cold, dark, or wet but rather that it is at very high pressure, which is harder to deal with than very low pressure (as is the case with space).

Yes - a submarine must be sturdier than a spacecraft (though a spacecraft meant to return to Earth needs a good heat shield to survive atmospheric re-entry; another problem in space you don't have on the ocean floor is radiation). Either way, my point was that there are environments here on Earth that have shown to be too hostile for human colonization (while there is currently a lot of debate of deep sea mining, nobody thinks of mining towns on the ocean floor; instead, the mining companies plan to use robots) despite being much less hostile than the Moon or Mars.

But the point in this thread is that space colonization is not a solution to today's problems. Nor are schemes to exploit the ocean floor, for that matter. The ocean floor is a very sensitive ecosystem, and the consequences of its destruction are unknown but probably dire.

[Travis B.]

To me space colonization is not to solve humanity's problems today but to mitigate humanity's existential risks on a scale of millennia -- but if we never take the first real steps towards it we will never get anywhere in the first place.

[alice]

but then Musk has a talent for turning technological gold to shit.

Not to mention a talent for turning technological shit into gold for himself.

I.e. some kind of Musk-flavoured Philosopher's Stone (or Sorcerer's Stone if you're in the USA).