Mars and Off Planet Colonization - Pros and Cons Discussion

[scaesare]

Right. And I'd say that there are explorers among us, not that humans are explorers. It's an important distinction, and it is not maintained when people talk about humanity reaching out into space. It won't be humanity, but rather some people who are obsessed with that sort of thing.

In searching on this topic, it appears that polls find that Americans and British run around 35% interest in doing something like visiting the Moon as a tourist - where money was not an issue. And I think that removing money is a fair way to ask about true interest in something like that. But what isn't included in the question is what sort of conditions they'd face. Is it going to be like a cruise ship, or is it going to be like visiting McMurdo Station in the Antarctic? I can see 35% opting for the cruise ship experience, but I suspect the numbers would drop towards 1% for the latter. It's still a huge number of people, but it's not indicative of a characteristic of humanity.

So if such a small portion of the country is interested, then public money shouldn't be used for it. It should be kept a private venture. Thank goodness we're headed in that direction now.

I don't disagree with the context you provided. Again, I think it's how terms are used. Given that there's probably a very small set of characteristics that 100% of humans have (or even 95%), you'd be technically correct (the best kind!) in saying that "there are <insert trait here> among us" for all the rest. But when it's a notable trait (even if found in relatively few) it's often ascribed to humans in general.

Example: The Human Desire for Exploration Leads to Discovery - NASA.

That having been said, I'm in agreement that privatization of lots of such endeavors is a good thing, although there's history of follow-on exploitation and general rudeness.

 

[scaesare]

This is an interesting discussion... so a hypothetical question:

Given that terraforming is a long shot, and bio-habitats are fraught with risks... what about other "goldilocks zone" planets?

Assuming that we found method to cover vast interstellar distances (wormholes, leveraging time dilation, bending space/time, <insert sci-fi mechanism here>, etc...), would you feel that's a valid reason for "moving human bodies off the planet" and the risks in getting to a habitable destination?

 

[Unclepaul]

We build shoes for walking around.
We build bicycles for getting around the neighborhood.
We build busses and autos for getting around the city.
We build trains and highways to get around the continent.
We build aircraft to get around the world.
We build space craft to get around the Galaxie.

 

[JB47394]

Assuming that we found method to cover vast interstellar distances (wormholes, leveraging time dilation, bending space/time, <insert sci-fi mechanism here>, etc...), would you feel that's a valid reason for "moving human bodies off the planet" and the risks in getting to a habitable destination?

Suppose we had instant and free teleportation that provided access to dozens of Earth clones. Ready to go tomorrow.

I'd turn off the teleporters. Having more doesn't change the human experience. We'd just keep breeding and fill all available room. Along the way, we'd bicker and fight amongst ourselves to decide who gets which bits, because there are always more attractive bits than others.

The root problem lies within us. Our selfishness and other primitive behaviors. Instead of catering to our flaws by reducing the pressures that trigger bad behavior (e.g. competing for resources), we should be addressing the flaws. But our very flaws prevent us from even considering that. It would take a majority of the human race to recognize itself as flawed and ready for change to something better. From there, we'd have to figure out what a better version of humanity would even be. Then we'd screw it up, likely multiple times, but hopefully each iteration would be better than the evolved version that we have today. Just removing the desire to kill other people in order to "solve" problems would be a good start. As would reducing the desire to relentlessly crank out new people.

So my ideal is not a galactic empire (e.g. Dune) but a bucolic country village. For a billion people. Chock full of philosophers, engineers, scientists, artists and so on. People who would be content with being able to manage our beautiful planet and to relentlessly improve the human condition.

 

[ecarfan]

So my ideal is not a galactic empire (e.g. Dune) but a bucolic country village. For a billion people. Chock full of philosophers, engineers, scientists, artists and so on. People who would be content with being able to manage our beautiful planet and to relentlessly improve the human condition.

But you just argued that humans are inherently flawed: “…we should be addressing the flaws. But our very flaws prevent us from even considering that.”

As a biologist, my perspective is what you call “flaws” are the evolutionary forces that drive all living organisms; reproduction necessitates competition for mates and resources, both of which are finite quantities. The competition produces winners and losers. This has been the case during the entire four billion year history of life on Earth.

As long as humans are confined to Earth, resources are indeed finite. But…humans are on the cusp of developing technologies that would no longer confine them to one planet and they could take advantage of resources off Earth and potentially throughout our local galaxy. In the process humans would learn new things and make new discoveries that could benefit everyone.

Yes, intelligent machines will be used to make those discoveries — as has been done for decades already — but there is no fundamental reason why humans could not accompany those machines off planet. Given that some humans have an an intense curiosity and drive to explore and experience things as much as possible with their own senses it’s clear to me that they will succeed in doing so.

Elon has frequently said that humanity has the resources to simultaneously work to improve life on Earth and explore our solar system, and I agree with him. One does not preclude the other.

 

[JB47394]

As a biologist, my perspective is what you call “flaws” are the evolutionary forces that drive all living organisms

Exactly. That's the stuff that causes us to behave like animals. The more advanced our technology, the more dangerous it is for humanity because animals excel at irrational uses of such things.

As long as humans are confined to Earth, resources are indeed finite.

Resources are always finite. It's a question of whether we have enough resources to keep from triggering those animal instincts. So do we just keep expanding ever outwards and accept that we'll all kill each other if we stop, or do we alter our perception of the universe such that we can be content with what we already have? There's no inherent benefit to having 100 trillion people in the universe versus 100 million, so I suggest that a line be drawn at around the billion mark because that's a level that Earth can probably support in perpetuity.

Given that some humans have an an intense curiosity and drive to explore and experience things as much as possible with their own senses it’s clear to me that they will succeed in doing so.

But that intense drive is just another instinctive behavior. It has no inherent worth, and has been a constant source of strife here on Earth. What happens when a new Earth is discovered somewhere, and there are a few million people with an intense drive to claim the lands on that planet? There we go again with intrigue, deception, strife, conflict and war. It's an endless cycle that has its origins in our "evolutionary forces".

 

[ecarfan]

That's the stuff that causes us to behave like animals. The more advanced our technology, the more dangerous it is for humanity because animals excel at irrational uses of such things.

Humans are animals. And it is not a pejorative term.

It is not irrational for humans to seek a competitive advantage. It is what all living things do on Earth, and very likely elsewhere in the universe. If a species does not have behaviors that result in its having a competitive edge over other species in its environment, the species will cease to exist. That is basic evolutionary biology. It is not inherently “bad” or “irrational”. In fact it is entirely rational.

But humans are also social animals. We realize that in some cases cooperation is better than non-cooperation. And in recent history humans have come to realize that organizing a social structure with rules that work to decrease violent conflict are advantageous for that society as a whole. Over time our tribes have become larger; from small hunter/gatherer groups of ten to twenty individuals to country “tribes” of hundreds of millions of humans that by and large get along reasonably well. Our current challenge is that our weapons now have global reach, our impacts on our environment are also global, and we have not come to terms with what needs to be the next step; that all humans are basically the same and need to cooperate globally. Whether humanity will meet that challenge or not I cannot predict.

Resources are always finite.

No. Our own galaxy is essentially infinite (200+ billion stars and planets) and the universe obviously is.

But that intense drive is just another instinctive behavior. It has no inherent worth, and has been a constant source of strife here on Earth. What happens when a new Earth is discovered somewhere, and there are a few million people with an intense drive to claim the lands on that planet? There we go again with intrigue, deception, strife, conflict and war. It's an endless cycle that has its origins in our "evolutionary forces".

That intense human drive of curiosity and a need to explore is a valuable evolutionary adaptation that has resulted in humans expanding into an extremely diverse range of habitats — more than any other species except bacteria and viruses — on Earth and led to amazing discoveries that have benefited all of us. That drive obviously has a great deal of worth/value.

It seems likely that as humans learn more about their solar system they will not encounter other sentient life forms. But someday, if humans start exploring their galaxy — and I think that is possible — they may meet other intelligent species and yes there could be conflict. I do not see that as a reason not to explore and learn about our place in the universe.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Exactly. That's the stuff that causes us to behave like animals. The more advanced our technology, the more dangerous it is for humanity because animals excel at irrational uses of such things.


Resources are always finite. It's a question of whether we have enough resources to keep from triggering those animal instincts. So do we just keep expanding ever outwards and accept that we'll all kill each other if we stop, or do we alter our perception of the universe such that we can be content with what we already have? There's no inherent benefit to having 100 trillion people in the universe versus 100 million, so I suggest that a line be drawn at around the billion mark because that's a level that Earth can probably support in perpetuity.


But that intense drive is just another instinctive behavior. It has no inherent worth, and has been a constant source of strife here on Earth. What happens when a new Earth is discovered somewhere, and there are a few million people with an intense drive to claim the lands on that planet? There we go again with intrigue, deception, strife, conflict and war. It's an endless cycle that has its origins in our "evolutionary forces".

Considering the Fermi Paradox, I'm afraid your desire to pacify humanity (aka control its insatiable urge to compete and expand) would doom it to extinction. A species that is content to be a master of its limited environment is no different from the dodo birds.

 

[JB47394]

Clearly I disagree, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[ecarfan]

A species that is content to be a master of its limited environment is no different from the dodo birds.

The dodo bird was doing fine on Mauritius until humans arrived and realized it was an easy food resource, but it was probably the dogs, pigs, cats and rats that came along with the humans that had a greater impact. The dodo had no chance, just like the many species of moa in New Zealand.

In the history of life on our planet, out of all the species that ever existed over 90% have gone extinct because they could not adapt to a changing environment. Humans are amazingly adaptable. But we’ve only been around for less than 500 million years and now our environment is changing rapidly. We may not survive the 500 years. Let’s get off Earth — while simultaneously trying to take better care of our terrestrial environment — and perhaps increase our chances of surviving for longer, while also learning more about the universe and having some amazing adventures.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

The dodo bird was doing fine on Mauritius until humans arrived and realized it was an easy food resource, but it was probably the dogs, pigs, cats and rats that came along with the humans that had a greater impact. The dodo had no chance, just like the many species of moa in New Zealand.

In the history of life on our planet, out of all the species that ever existed over 90% have gone extinct because they could not adapt to a changing environment. Humans are amazingly adaptable. But we’ve only been around for less than 500 million years and now our environment is changing rapidly. We may not survive the 500 years. Let’s get off Earth — while simultaneously trying to take better care of our terrestrial environment — and perhaps increase our chances of surviving for longer, while also learning more about the universe and having some amazing adventures.

Yes humans are adaptable, but what makes us adaptable? Our competitive nature (aka those evolutionary forces) are what makes us so. You can't have the positives without the negatives. It's wishful thinking to say that "we can". People who can think "I have enough", don't have the drive to beat out those who say "I want more". So once you breed out the greed, what you'll have left is a species that won't change, because it has enough.

 

[scaesare]

Suppose we had instant and free teleportation that provided access to dozens of Earth clones. Ready to go tomorrow.

I'd turn off the teleporters. Having more doesn't change the human experience. We'd just keep breeding and fill all available room. Along the way, we'd bicker and fight amongst ourselves to decide who gets which bits, because there are always more attractive bits than others.

The root problem lies within us. Our selfishness and other primitive behaviors. Instead of catering to our flaws by reducing the pressures that trigger bad behavior (e.g. competing for resources), we should be addressing the flaws. But our very flaws prevent us from even considering that. It would take a majority of the human race to recognize itself as flawed and ready for change to something better. From there, we'd have to figure out what a better version of humanity would even be. Then we'd screw it up, likely multiple times, but hopefully each iteration would be better than the evolved version that we have today. Just removing the desire to kill other people in order to "solve" problems would be a good start. As would reducing the desire to relentlessly crank out new people.

So my ideal is not a galactic empire (e.g. Dune) but a bucolic country village. For a billion people. Chock full of philosophers, engineers, scientists, artists and so on. People who would be content with being able to manage our beautiful planet and to relentlessly improve the human condition.

So... your comment in the Polaris thread that I replied to that ultimately started this discussion (I hesitate to call it a debate, not my intent... just interested in everyone's viewpoints) was this:

As a manned space flight pessimist, I'll throw in here that EVAs, and especially untethered EVAs are a dangerous and ineffective way to work in space. Use teleoperation, remote manipulators, waldos, whatever you want to call them. A robot arm with cameras and manipulators on it that allows someone to work from somewhere nearby in relative comfort and safety. Criminy, put the top of an Optimus robot onto an arm that can walk (or fly) to the work site, then have the guys with Tesla's training rigs do the work from inside their ship or station or whatever.

The only value for suits is depressurization safety, a second line of defense.

This seemed to indicate that the "objection" to humans in space was the risk associated with it. And that humans as a hole weren't "explorers".

Subsequently you then talked about the issues humanity has here at home, and simply being "good stewards" if their home (planet) and societal ills in general. And I'm with you that those are very real issues. (I happen to feel there will be solution to this, but that's a religious discussion that I won't present here, folks are welcome to PM if curious).

So, do you think it's plausible that both "fixing ourselves" and "exploring space" can be done in parallel, or does one preclude the other (assuming fixing ourselves in perpetuity is even possible under current circumstances)?

Even the village of a much smaller population of "nice people" will be wiped out when the sun goes supernova... game over?

(the thread fork / re-merge threw me for a bit...)

 

[ecarfan]

But we’ve only been around for less than 500 million years

CORRECTION: I meant 500 THOUSAND years, not million. Apologies.

People who can think "I have enough", don't have the drive to beat out those who say "I want more".

Define what you mean by “beat out”. What matters to evolution is what biologists call reproductive fitness; the ability to pass on genes to the next generation. That defines whether a species continues on or not. Everything else is just window dressing. Jeff Bezos doesn’t have more children just because he spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a crazy big boat which needs its own crazy big support boat. A human can say “I have enough” because they have a decent home, a good mate, some modest investments that allow them to retire at 65 and a couple of kids, and their genes will continue on just like Bezos’s offspring. He has three (plus one adopted) but many people of modest means have that many and they do okay.

So once you breed out the greed, what you'll have left is a species that won't change, because it has enough.

Using pejorative terms like “greed” isn’t helpful in this discussion. In any case, evolution favors the ability to adapt to a changing environment that may include reduced resources, so controlling resources when they are available can be a good strategy. Which is another reason why humans are evolutionarily successful; they are omnivores that are constantly reflecting on the past, being in the moment, and wondering about the future. Learning and then passing on that learning to the next generation.

 

[ecarfan]

Even the village of a much smaller population of "nice people" will be wiped out when the sun goes supernova... game over?

Long before that occurs our planet will have been repeatedly hit by large asteroids that will destroy human civilization and quite possible all humans.

Best to plan ahead for that certainty. Yes, we should work on better asteroid detection and deflection, but we should also work on off planet colonization for a double layer of protection.

 

[scaesare]

Yes humans are adaptable, but what makes us adaptable? Our competitive nature (aka those evolutionary forces) are what makes us so. You can't have the positives without the negatives. It's wishful thinking to say that "we can". People who can think "I have enough", don't have the drive to beat out those who say "I want more". So once you breed out the greed, what you'll have left is a species that won't change, because it has enough.

Mmm... I don't believe that greed is a required trait for continued exploration.

Do some folks want to push the frontier in order to profit/exploit? Yes.

Are there also folks who are interested in exploring for the sheer fascination of it, and inclined towards preservation? Also yes.

The numbers are probably skewed toward the former, but I think it demonstrates that the drive to explore doesn't require inordinate greed.

(This has interestingly turned in to somewhat of a "human condition" thread)

 

[JB47394]

So, do you think it's plausible that both "fixing ourselves" and "exploring space" can be done in parallel, or does one preclude the other (assuming fixing ourselves in perpetuity is even possible under current circumstances)?

Part of the "fix" would be the elimination of the instinctive desire to explore the universe. If there are good reasons to explore the universe, then the "fixed" humans would ensure that it happens. The most obvious one to me is ensuring that a big rock doesn't drop on our heads. Whether they'd go themselves or send robotic agents would be up to them, depending on how they got "fixed".

The whole "fixing" thing is intended to allow humanity to do what's best for humanity, to allow it to become its best form of itself. Such "fixed" people exist today, and I'd just like everyone to be like them.

Even the village of a much smaller population of "nice people" will be wiped out when the sun goes supernova... game over?

Five billion years from now (2000 times the biological history of modern humans, starting with Homo habilis), when the sun enters its red giant phase, you can be sure that humanity will be unrecognizable to us, regardless of whether we explore or not.

 

[scaesare]

Part of the "fix" would be the elimination of the instinctive desire to explore the universe. If there are good reasons to explore the universe, then the "fixed" humans would ensure that it happens. The most obvious one to me is ensuring that a big rock doesn't drop on our heads. Whether they'd go themselves or send robotic agents would be up to them, depending on how they got "fixed".

The whole "fixing" thing is intended to allow humanity to do what's best for humanity, to allow it to become its best form of itself. Such "fixed" people exist today, and I'd just like everyone to be like them.

Hmmm... I think the issue is not the desire to explore, it's the motive. Put folks in in a valley, and they'll want to see what's on the other side of the mountain. Or across the river. Or over the ocean. Or above the clouds. Or on the moon. Etc...

It takes more technological innovation for each step. But that curiosity seems there from childhood.

What seems to need to be eliminated is our centrist view of prioritizing "me" over "us". If that were not at issue, there's an amazingly ginormous universe to explore.

Five billion years from now (2000 times the biological history of modern humans, starting with Homo habilis), when the sun enters its red giant phase, you can be sure that humanity will be unrecognizable to us, regardless of whether we explore or not.

In terms of capabilities, and external things/constructs... sure. In terms of actual beings, I suspect we'll be very recognizable.

Regardless, at that point earth is no longer viable for the species.... so The End?

 

[JB47394]

But that curiosity seems there from childhood.

Emphasis on "instinctive", not "desire" or "motive". Whatever the reason, it is instinctive. Curiosity is instinctive. Instincts are simply what evolution has given us, and they aren't necessarily the best tools to have in our kit. The whole "fixing" thing is to review the toolkit and consciously restructure it. Think about all the negative instincts. Heck, you could say that my instinct for wanting us to stay on the planet and focus on us is a net negative.

What seems to need to be eliminated is our centrist view of prioritizing "me" over "us".

Yep. That's been at the core of Christian teaching for 2000 years. It hasn't worked, though, because of our instincts overriding anything we can be taught. It's certainly had an effect, but there are limits even to the impact of Christ's teachings. For some reason, they never resonated in Asia.

In terms of capabilities, and external things/constructs... sure. In terms of actual beings, I suspect we'll be very recognizable.

Consider continued human evolution, driven by instinct, but augmented by technology. Most specifically, genetic modifications. Why not add wings? Or reduce the size of people (for our space-faring civilization)? Would a prehensile tail help? How about no longer needing to chew food? More eyes? Fur? Armored scales?

Why burden our bodies by hanging technology off of them when we alter our bodies so that the technology isn't needed?

Remember, five billion years.

 

[ecarfan]

Five billion years from now (2000 times the biological history of modern humans, starting with Homo habilis), when the sun enters its red giant phase, you can be sure that humanity will be unrecognizable to us, regardless of whether we explore or not

Yes, and I would postulate that less than a thousand years from now, because of genetic engineering and AI and other things we cannot even imagine, humans will be almost unrecognizable by a visitor magically transported forward from the present, and human civilization will be completely transformed.

Our sun going nova is the least of my concerns when it comes to the future of humanity. Massive asteroids, the Earth cycling between a water covered sauna and a frozen snowball, and the radical alteration of the biosphere that we currently depend on are what occupy my mind.

 

[JB47394]

Our sun going nova is the least of my concerns when it comes to the future of humanity. Massive asteroids, the Earth cycling between a water covered sauna and a frozen snowball, and the radical alteration of the biosphere that we currently depend on are what occupy my mind.

Here's another long-term one; the sun is increasing in brightness by about 10 percent every billion years. Another 10 percent means that the oceans will evaporate and the surface will be too hot for water to form. By then, however, we may have the ability to move the planet around, so it stays at just the right distance.

Oh, note that the sun won't go nova. It'll just go red giant, then collapse into a white dwarf. Supernovae need a lot more mass, and nova require a companion star from which a white dwarf can accrete matter, which then rapidly fuses and blows off.