While I sympathize, it seems odd to segue from 'total environmental meltdown' to 'scorekeeping in an imaginary game for imaginary points'. Which is what capitalism is - a game for made-up dollar-points to motivate individuals to go to work. Really, almost ever economic system is exactly that thing.
Your objection to the segue would make more sense if those "imaginary points" didn't have the potential to e.g. purchase one of a limited number of tickets off the planet (or any number of other life-changing/saving things). There's a sense in which money isn't "real", but capitalism certainly isn't an imaginary game for imaginary points.
Capitalism is just a social control system to replace previous control systems like "religion" and "nationalism." It provides a general rules-set for the average person to follow and believe in while allowing for greatly artificial and generally negative social gradients and stratification.
For example, why should an ignorant hotel-heiress be afforded one of the limited opportunities to flee the degraded Earth simply because she happens to possess more imaginary points than a skilled technician or competent farmer? Her real-social-utility is quite low compared to someone with functional capabilities and her "great wealth" is directly derived from the environmental degradation she is hoping to flee.
"Intellectual currency" as you put it, is absolutely necessary on the frontier, along with tenacity and a willingness to put up with physical and mental hardship.
If there is a limit to the number of people who can flee a degraded earth, I see no problem limiting it to people who can work together and yield their intellect in service of survival. I'm almost positive that I would be one of the ones left behind on Earth so this isn't some sort of personal superiority complex.
I also think it's entirely appropriate for those who have benefited disproportionately from the degradation of a system to use their extensive resources in direct service to fix the problem.
Ultimately I'd like to believe that all persons interested in "escape" could be accommodated but I also think most of us would have to remain and deal with or fix the degradation.
If everyone's life was on the line, no amount of imaginary dollars would get you a ticket. It would be fixed by those in power. Don't fool yourself. The imaginary points are only there to motivate the working class.
Before dissing capitalism, try living under one of it's alternatives for a while. Generally speaking, they haven't worked out so well in practice.
It's funny how a marginal increase in wealth ratios has people spitting out their Starbucks and throwing down their XBOX controllers in disgust. Meanwhile people in China are clamouring for as much capitalism as they can possibly get, to lift their families out of grinding poverty.
That doesn't mean there aren't issues to resolve. Clearly there is some recalibration required in terms of an equitable redistribution of the benefits of our economy, but I think some degree of perspective is in order.
Couple points against humans physically exploring and colonizing space...
* Can't go faster than light (or even a large fraction of the limit)
* Cost. Look at price per compute vs price to bring something to space and tell me which trend seems more durable. Things will keep getting smaller while space exploration may not.
* Space sucks! Very inhospitable. I'd rather live in a biodome on a ravaged earth than mars.
---
Alternative things to spend huge amounts of money on:
* LHC and other research on very small things
* More telescopes in space (light travels at the speed of light at least! Let it come to us instead of vice versa!)
* Encouraging trend of cheaper compute (not that it needs it)
* Brain to computer interfaces.
* Medicine
---
What's to say some low mass x-ray binary systems aren't the final stage of life evolution? Super efficient harvesting of the sun and everyone living in a computer/black hole? Transcension hypothesis basically.
> * Can't go faster than light (or even a large fraction of the limit)
That's a valid argument against traveling to other solar systems for sure. We could still travel to any planet/moon in our solar system in easily less than a generation and probably no more than 10 years.
> * Cost. Look at price per compute vs price to bring something to space and tell me which trend seems more durable. Things will keep getting smaller while space exploration may not.
Space will likely still be expensive for generations to come but reusability of rockets will decrease the expense of space travel by a couple of orders of magnitude. Imagine that we needed to build a new Airbus for each airplane trip, nobody would fly, it would be too expensive. Relative to rockets themselves, rocket fuel is cheap.
> * Space sucks! Very inhospitable. I'd rather live in a biodome on a ravaged earth than mars.
I don't know if I'd want to live my life on Mars either. That doesn't mean we shouldn't explore Mars and beyond.
* Can't go faster than light (or even a large fraction of the limit)
It's my weak understanding that because of time dilation & length contraction I could climb aboard a sufficiently powerful ship and travel 10,000 light years before dieing of old age. But, when I got there, I would find that 10,000+ years had passed at the destination while they waited for me. And, that if I made a return trip, Earth would be 20,000+ years older. But, importantly, /I/ would not necessarily be 20,000 years older.
So, the speed of light still sucks, but it mainly sucks if you care about returning home. If you give up on that goal, relativity does not say it's impossible to travel to arbitrarily far locations in human-scale timeframes.
You're not missunderstanding. The problem is that to go that fast, even assuming perfect conversion of mass to energy with zero losses, you'd need to reach a speed of 0.999987 lighspeed. That gives a 200x time dilation factor so the 10,000 year journay appears to take you only 50 years.
You'd need to convert approximately 100,000x the mass of your capsule to energy to reach that kind of velocity, and the same again to slow back down at the other end. So for a one way trip, the payload would be on the order of 1/1,000,000,000,000th of the mass of the ship.
For comparrison, that means a starship the size of a Saturn V would be able to deliver a 3 milligram payload. If you assume even very slight efficiency losses, the possible payload size collapses quickly. Remember, some of that payload would need to be taken up by the propulsion system.
The problem with beamed power over that kind of distance is beam divergeance (yes, even laser beams do diverge). Even very low wavelength beams, starting with very wide aperture emitters, end up with a beam many times the diameter of the solar system over these kinds of ranges. Good luck trying to capture that energy for your spaceship.
The problem with picking up reaction mass along the way is, you need to lose energy to accelerate it up to your own current speed first before you can consume it as reaction mass to speed yourself up. As you get closer to lightspeed, even with perfect, lossless conversion, e.g. at 0.9c you lose 90% of the energy of the reaction mass bringing it up to your own velocity and get only 10% of it for beneficial thrust. The total of required reaction mass, which was already ludicrously huge for any practical payload, balloons massively.
If you do actualy have energy conversion losses, those limit your maximum possible speed. If you lose e.g. 1% of the energy you convert, then once you're at 99% lightspeed, the energy you gain from burning the reaction mass is the same as the energy you expended bringing it upto your own velocity. So there's no net gain.
A top speed of 0.99C only gives you a time dilation factor of about x2.3 or so.
And of course all of that is assuming magic fantasy tech with unbelievably high efficiencies and negligibly sized engines and mass storage.
Ok, true about the divergence, but how installing lasers along your flight path? In principle that should work, right?
Or alternatively instead of placing stationary fuel pellets in your flight path, have them accelerated by an external accelerator to as high a speed as possible.
You'd end up spending hundreds of thousands of years, and expending the combined resources of many solar systems, just to deliver one guy in a space capsule. What is the point of this journey anyway?
Light years is a measure of distance not time. As a result 10,000 light years measured from either parties perspective is 10,000 light years. ie a human on the ship would still experience 10,000 years of travel. No human can currently live that long.
Now change your hypothetical numbers to 10 light years and you're not misunderstanding anything. The human aboard the ship would have experienced 10 years of travel. However, any observer from Earth would have experienced 10*(some large factor) years, such that making a return trip "home" is impossible.
I find it amusing that the space migration crowd is all into whiz-bang feel good tech like rockets, but not into the incredibly prosaic concept of terraforming. Where's the clamoring for more money spent there? Why aren't the sharp young minds migrating into that field? Why isn't anyone funding it? How many sharp young minds want to spend their life toiling on a project that won't finish until long after their great grandchildren are dead?
Its almost like the space migration crowd knows this is all a crock of shit. They just want rockets and other toys that have no where to go. Sure, we'll have an asteroid and possibly a Mars landing one day, but we can't stay. The same way we put men on the moon and had them drive around a bit, but at the end of the day, there was no reason to go back and certainly no possibility of staying.
I find it amusing that people speak of terraforming - making planets more habitable for humans - when making humans more durable is actually a lot more feasible by comparison, not to mention solves a lot of other problems at the same time.
A lot of hard problems in human space travel get much easier when you remove the constraint that human physiology must be immutable.
The point is the whole frame of the debate has changed. It used to be that exploring Mars would have required massive investment in single-use rockets for a vanity mission. Now we are on the cusp of realising an order of magnitude drop in the cost of access to space. Recovering F9 first stages is only phase 1. The next step would be a redesigned SpaceX rocket allowing for a recoverable 2nd stage as well.
It's no longer about massively costly media shows, but inexpensive, sustainable projects that may be achievable within our lifetime.
I disagree with your proposed alternate allocations.
LHC and other research on very small things
Has yet to provide actionable information, and could've been less of a boondoggle if the US had just funded their own damn apparatus years ago instead of killing the projecting.
More telescopes in space
Are basically pointless if you aren't intending to go anywhere.
Encouraging trend of cheaper compute
This is something that is getting increasingly hard to accomplish. We'd be better off spending that money rewriting existing utilities to be cleaner and less wasteful in their use of processing cycles.
Brain to computer interfaces
Very, very, very bad idea. Once this works, we've got a massive box of philosophical and psychological issues to deal with--reality becomes suspect and meaningless.
Medicine
Mostly worthless. We've got the technology to save lives and solve health issues, but either politics or capitalism work directly against it. As long as there's a buck to be made convincing people to be unhealthy, we lose.
Even with better medicine, what do we do with all the extra people? Where do they go, since we're not going to space?
Very, very, very bad idea. Once this works, we've got a massive box of philosophical and psychological issues to deal with--reality becomes suspect and meaningless.
Sure, there are all sorts of bizarre risks inherent in this, but is there any possibility that this won't happen? It seems all the trends point this way?
I don't think we really disagree, but what do you mean, specifically? I foresee the eager adoption of brain-computer interfaces by significant portions of the population (possibly including myself), and all sorts of problems ensuing from that. I think those problems might well include evil shit devised by our various enforcement agencies, and I won't be surprised if Snowden's whistleblowing successors reveal just that.
> Very, very, very bad idea. Once this works, we've got a massive box of philosophical and psychological issues to deal with--reality becomes suspect and meaningless.
Objective reality is suspect anyway, since all the methods of accessing it are subjective.
Brain to computer interfaces may draw more visibility to this long-known philosophical problem, but it doesn't fundamentally change the landscape.
If you're going to get that hung up on philosophy, reality is already suspect and meaningless. This observation dates back at least to Descartes. His solution involved the ontological argument for the existence of God. My solution is to not get that hung up on philosophy. Take your pick.
We fleshbags have a pretty big problem when it comes to think outside of ourselves; be it from a humanitarian, horological, or cosmological sense. Our future is going to be pretty dire if we can't figure this problem out first, and stop asking science to panhandle for scraps thrown to it by government budgets that treat it like a monetary plague.
Literally every other interview on film, audio or in writing he's ever done. This guy literally rehashes interview questions, word for word, in a particular order. It's actually hilarious once you've seen 10 of his interviews, as well as mind numbingly boring. But I keep listening to them hoping he'll say something new, as the things he does say are pretty powerful.
Hell if someone took 10 of his interviews and just made a video of the exact same question answered the exact same way, that'd be pure comedy gold. You'd trend on social media with that for sure. Things like 'lived on 1 dollar a day', '5 most important things for humanity' and 'reason from first principles', are just a few of the things he manages to say in every single interview.
Well if the interviewers would stop asking the same stupid questions over and over again he might get a chance to say something different. I felt this interview was a completely wasted opportunity by NGT.
Rather than solve the problem of not having enough resources to survive on Earth, why not solve the problem of needing the resources to exist in the first place?
Life will leave this Earth but not in the form everyone expects.
44 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 51.1 ms ] threadI think it would be best for humanity if we first try to fix capitalism, giving everybody equal opportunities.
For example, why should an ignorant hotel-heiress be afforded one of the limited opportunities to flee the degraded Earth simply because she happens to possess more imaginary points than a skilled technician or competent farmer? Her real-social-utility is quite low compared to someone with functional capabilities and her "great wealth" is directly derived from the environmental degradation she is hoping to flee.
"Intellectual currency" as you put it, is absolutely necessary on the frontier, along with tenacity and a willingness to put up with physical and mental hardship.
If there is a limit to the number of people who can flee a degraded earth, I see no problem limiting it to people who can work together and yield their intellect in service of survival. I'm almost positive that I would be one of the ones left behind on Earth so this isn't some sort of personal superiority complex.
I also think it's entirely appropriate for those who have benefited disproportionately from the degradation of a system to use their extensive resources in direct service to fix the problem.
Ultimately I'd like to believe that all persons interested in "escape" could be accommodated but I also think most of us would have to remain and deal with or fix the degradation.
It's funny how a marginal increase in wealth ratios has people spitting out their Starbucks and throwing down their XBOX controllers in disgust. Meanwhile people in China are clamouring for as much capitalism as they can possibly get, to lift their families out of grinding poverty.
That doesn't mean there aren't issues to resolve. Clearly there is some recalibration required in terms of an equitable redistribution of the benefits of our economy, but I think some degree of perspective is in order.
* Can't go faster than light (or even a large fraction of the limit)
* Cost. Look at price per compute vs price to bring something to space and tell me which trend seems more durable. Things will keep getting smaller while space exploration may not.
* Space sucks! Very inhospitable. I'd rather live in a biodome on a ravaged earth than mars.
---
Alternative things to spend huge amounts of money on:
* LHC and other research on very small things
* More telescopes in space (light travels at the speed of light at least! Let it come to us instead of vice versa!)
* Encouraging trend of cheaper compute (not that it needs it)
* Brain to computer interfaces.
* Medicine
---
What's to say some low mass x-ray binary systems aren't the final stage of life evolution? Super efficient harvesting of the sun and everyone living in a computer/black hole? Transcension hypothesis basically.
That's a valid argument against traveling to other solar systems for sure. We could still travel to any planet/moon in our solar system in easily less than a generation and probably no more than 10 years.
> * Cost. Look at price per compute vs price to bring something to space and tell me which trend seems more durable. Things will keep getting smaller while space exploration may not.
Space will likely still be expensive for generations to come but reusability of rockets will decrease the expense of space travel by a couple of orders of magnitude. Imagine that we needed to build a new Airbus for each airplane trip, nobody would fly, it would be too expensive. Relative to rockets themselves, rocket fuel is cheap.
> * Space sucks! Very inhospitable. I'd rather live in a biodome on a ravaged earth than mars.
I don't know if I'd want to live my life on Mars either. That doesn't mean we shouldn't explore Mars and beyond.
It's my weak understanding that because of time dilation & length contraction I could climb aboard a sufficiently powerful ship and travel 10,000 light years before dieing of old age. But, when I got there, I would find that 10,000+ years had passed at the destination while they waited for me. And, that if I made a return trip, Earth would be 20,000+ years older. But, importantly, /I/ would not necessarily be 20,000 years older.
So, the speed of light still sucks, but it mainly sucks if you care about returning home. If you give up on that goal, relativity does not say it's impossible to travel to arbitrarily far locations in human-scale timeframes.
Am I misunderstanding?
There is no way to live longer by traveling fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
You'd need to convert approximately 100,000x the mass of your capsule to energy to reach that kind of velocity, and the same again to slow back down at the other end. So for a one way trip, the payload would be on the order of 1/1,000,000,000,000th of the mass of the ship.
For comparrison, that means a starship the size of a Saturn V would be able to deliver a 3 milligram payload. If you assume even very slight efficiency losses, the possible payload size collapses quickly. Remember, some of that payload would need to be taken up by the propulsion system.
The problem with picking up reaction mass along the way is, you need to lose energy to accelerate it up to your own current speed first before you can consume it as reaction mass to speed yourself up. As you get closer to lightspeed, even with perfect, lossless conversion, e.g. at 0.9c you lose 90% of the energy of the reaction mass bringing it up to your own velocity and get only 10% of it for beneficial thrust. The total of required reaction mass, which was already ludicrously huge for any practical payload, balloons massively.
If you do actualy have energy conversion losses, those limit your maximum possible speed. If you lose e.g. 1% of the energy you convert, then once you're at 99% lightspeed, the energy you gain from burning the reaction mass is the same as the energy you expended bringing it upto your own velocity. So there's no net gain.
A top speed of 0.99C only gives you a time dilation factor of about x2.3 or so.
And of course all of that is assuming magic fantasy tech with unbelievably high efficiencies and negligibly sized engines and mass storage.
Or alternatively instead of placing stationary fuel pellets in your flight path, have them accelerated by an external accelerator to as high a speed as possible.
Light years is a measure of distance not time. As a result 10,000 light years measured from either parties perspective is 10,000 light years. ie a human on the ship would still experience 10,000 years of travel. No human can currently live that long.
Now change your hypothetical numbers to 10 light years and you're not misunderstanding anything. The human aboard the ship would have experienced 10 years of travel. However, any observer from Earth would have experienced 10*(some large factor) years, such that making a return trip "home" is impossible.
I find it amusing that the space migration crowd is all into whiz-bang feel good tech like rockets, but not into the incredibly prosaic concept of terraforming. Where's the clamoring for more money spent there? Why aren't the sharp young minds migrating into that field? Why isn't anyone funding it? How many sharp young minds want to spend their life toiling on a project that won't finish until long after their great grandchildren are dead?
Its almost like the space migration crowd knows this is all a crock of shit. They just want rockets and other toys that have no where to go. Sure, we'll have an asteroid and possibly a Mars landing one day, but we can't stay. The same way we put men on the moon and had them drive around a bit, but at the end of the day, there was no reason to go back and certainly no possibility of staying.
A lot of hard problems in human space travel get much easier when you remove the constraint that human physiology must be immutable.
It's no longer about massively costly media shows, but inexpensive, sustainable projects that may be achievable within our lifetime.
LHC and other research on very small things
Has yet to provide actionable information, and could've been less of a boondoggle if the US had just funded their own damn apparatus years ago instead of killing the projecting.
More telescopes in space
Are basically pointless if you aren't intending to go anywhere.
Encouraging trend of cheaper compute
This is something that is getting increasingly hard to accomplish. We'd be better off spending that money rewriting existing utilities to be cleaner and less wasteful in their use of processing cycles.
Brain to computer interfaces
Very, very, very bad idea. Once this works, we've got a massive box of philosophical and psychological issues to deal with--reality becomes suspect and meaningless.
Medicine
Mostly worthless. We've got the technology to save lives and solve health issues, but either politics or capitalism work directly against it. As long as there's a buck to be made convincing people to be unhealthy, we lose.
Even with better medicine, what do we do with all the extra people? Where do they go, since we're not going to space?
Very, very, very bad idea. Once this works, we've got a massive box of philosophical and psychological issues to deal with--reality becomes suspect and meaningless.
Sure, there are all sorts of bizarre risks inherent in this, but is there any possibility that this won't happen? It seems all the trends point this way?
> Very, very, very bad idea. Once this works, we've got a massive box of philosophical and psychological issues to deal with--reality becomes suspect and meaningless.
Objective reality is suspect anyway, since all the methods of accessing it are subjective.
Brain to computer interfaces may draw more visibility to this long-known philosophical problem, but it doesn't fundamentally change the landscape.
If you're going to get that hung up on philosophy, reality is already suspect and meaningless. This observation dates back at least to Descartes. His solution involved the ontological argument for the existence of God. My solution is to not get that hung up on philosophy. Take your pick.
Hell if someone took 10 of his interviews and just made a video of the exact same question answered the exact same way, that'd be pure comedy gold. You'd trend on social media with that for sure. Things like 'lived on 1 dollar a day', '5 most important things for humanity' and 'reason from first principles', are just a few of the things he manages to say in every single interview.
Anyway here's a quick transcript:
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/elon-musk-tunnels-could-ma...
Travel at near light speed is great, but how long did it take to accelerate to that speed and how long does it take to slow down?
Life will leave this Earth but not in the form everyone expects.