"For all it's material advantages, the sedentary life has left us edgy"
June 16, 2024 8:25 PM Subscribe
The importance of making life multi planetary can not be understated.
This singular speck of (known) life is far too precious for laurels to be rested upon.
We must venture into the void and make it home.
If we are brave enough to do so the challenge will enrich humanity as a whole.
posted by neonamber at 9:11 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]
This singular speck of (known) life is far too precious for laurels to be rested upon.
We must venture into the void and make it home.
If we are brave enough to do so the challenge will enrich humanity as a whole.
posted by neonamber at 9:11 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]
ditto, baby steps, but not stop with a single solar system
posted by rubatan at 9:22 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]
posted by rubatan at 9:22 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]
The importance of not fucking it up is that if we do, the tool-using raccoons that come after us will have that many fewer years before the sun explodes, and that many fewer resources to get off-planet and keep things going.
posted by fnerg at 9:24 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]
posted by fnerg at 9:24 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]
I don’t know if I see human life as having earned the right to spread throughout the solar system. We’ve been given this incredible, incredible gift of a planet here and we seem completely unable to keep it protected and healthy. I think life is astoundingly precious, but I am just so skeptical about our future. There’s so much we have to do here before we can even entertain the idea of trying somewhere else.
posted by RubixsQube at 9:51 PM on June 16 [6 favorites]
posted by RubixsQube at 9:51 PM on June 16 [6 favorites]
I don’t know if I see human life as having earned the right to spread throughout the solar system.
It's not just about us apes. We will eagerly but also unavoidably bring bits of our biosphere with us.
Further, the technological developments required for establishing a permanent presence in space will directly expand our capabilities and experience at managing healthy ecologies on Earth as well.
Want more resources spent on cracking carbon capture? A mars colony will do that.
Want more resources spent on ultra efficient and renewable human food production? A mars colony will do that too.
There will always be problems at home. It's an awful argument to stay put.
posted by neonamber at 11:56 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]
It's not just about us apes. We will eagerly but also unavoidably bring bits of our biosphere with us.
Further, the technological developments required for establishing a permanent presence in space will directly expand our capabilities and experience at managing healthy ecologies on Earth as well.
Want more resources spent on cracking carbon capture? A mars colony will do that.
Want more resources spent on ultra efficient and renewable human food production? A mars colony will do that too.
There will always be problems at home. It's an awful argument to stay put.
posted by neonamber at 11:56 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]
There will always be problems at home. It's an awful argument to stay put.
There is no good reason to think we have any choice. The idea that humanity is destined to travel the stars is scifi wishful thinking. The obsession with infinite growth forever is as pathological applied to outer space as it is to profit margins.
There is this cargo cult mentality. Scifi shows a victorious, post-scarcity humanity. Scifi shows humans in space. So if we start getting hunans in space, we're on the road to Star Trek.
We're all going to die here, together. We need to take care of the home we actually have.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:32 AM on June 17 [5 favorites]
There is no good reason to think we have any choice. The idea that humanity is destined to travel the stars is scifi wishful thinking. The obsession with infinite growth forever is as pathological applied to outer space as it is to profit margins.
There is this cargo cult mentality. Scifi shows a victorious, post-scarcity humanity. Scifi shows humans in space. So if we start getting hunans in space, we're on the road to Star Trek.
We're all going to die here, together. We need to take care of the home we actually have.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:32 AM on June 17 [5 favorites]
So if we start getting hunans in space, we're on the road to Star Trek.
The road to Star Trek is actually agnostic as to which particular Chinese cuisine goes into space first.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:55 AM on June 17 [4 favorites]
The road to Star Trek is actually agnostic as to which particular Chinese cuisine goes into space first.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:55 AM on June 17 [4 favorites]
I love Carl Sagan's voice so much. Maybe it's from growing up glued to the TV for every PBS show but his is a calming, fatherly voice. Very reassuring.
posted by hairless ape at 9:15 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]
posted by hairless ape at 9:15 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]
neoamber, I’m not sure I understand your points. Are you saying that earth sending out invasive species is a goal you aspire to? Who amongst the current crop of billionaires sucking at the teat of the US government in their quest to penetrate Mars orbit first is working on carbon capture? Efficient food systems?
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 10:01 PM on June 17 [1 favorite]
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 10:01 PM on June 17 [1 favorite]
Yawn. Life evolved on Earth. It probably has evolved in other places, if not now or in the past then in the future.
I think the moon landing was great and Star Trek is a cool show too, but I feel like the grandiosity some people put on space exploration is like the man who focuses on writing his great novel while his blood pressure is too high and his marriage is falling apart.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:00 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
I think the moon landing was great and Star Trek is a cool show too, but I feel like the grandiosity some people put on space exploration is like the man who focuses on writing his great novel while his blood pressure is too high and his marriage is falling apart.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:00 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
I always appreciate Carl Sagan though. He had his eyes towards the sky but his feet on the ground, more or less.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:02 AM on June 18
posted by AlSweigart at 5:02 AM on June 18
neoamber, I’m not sure I understand your points. Are you saying that earth sending out invasive species is a goal you aspire to?
For a species to be invasive in a biological sense it needs to be harmful in it's new environment. If the new environment lacks native biology then where exactly is the harm?
Abiological environments and processes of course have a subjective value to us, such as the earth-facing side of the moon. But beyond that, would you really care if a nameless, sterile, unresolvable object in the asteroid belt had life somehow introduced? If so, why?
I want humanity to make a home in space because right now the only creatures in the known universe to experience love, happiness and joy reside exclusively on this one planet. This one planet, now in the throws of a species of dominant apes carelessly wielding industrial chemistry, feels extremely precarious to me. We simply don't know what planetary scale consequence pitfalls lay ahead for humanity. My argument is not for humanity to escape from Earth but rather for humanity and the biology on which it depends to diversify into space. Not just for resilience but to expand the scope of experiences of which we all might share.
Who amongst the current crop of billionaires sucking at the teat of the US government in their quest to penetrate Mars orbit first is working on carbon capture? Efficient food systems?
Restate this in a coherent manner without the confusing degree of snide and I'll try to answer it.
posted by neonamber at 10:32 AM on June 19
For a species to be invasive in a biological sense it needs to be harmful in it's new environment. If the new environment lacks native biology then where exactly is the harm?
Abiological environments and processes of course have a subjective value to us, such as the earth-facing side of the moon. But beyond that, would you really care if a nameless, sterile, unresolvable object in the asteroid belt had life somehow introduced? If so, why?
I want humanity to make a home in space because right now the only creatures in the known universe to experience love, happiness and joy reside exclusively on this one planet. This one planet, now in the throws of a species of dominant apes carelessly wielding industrial chemistry, feels extremely precarious to me. We simply don't know what planetary scale consequence pitfalls lay ahead for humanity. My argument is not for humanity to escape from Earth but rather for humanity and the biology on which it depends to diversify into space. Not just for resilience but to expand the scope of experiences of which we all might share.
Who amongst the current crop of billionaires sucking at the teat of the US government in their quest to penetrate Mars orbit first is working on carbon capture? Efficient food systems?
Restate this in a coherent manner without the confusing degree of snide and I'll try to answer it.
posted by neonamber at 10:32 AM on June 19
Our ability to determine whether a planet is genuinely lifeless is imperfect at best. And we have no way of telling whether it might be prebiotic in a way we will disrupt by introducing our microbiome to it.
Why should we hope carbon capture or more efficient agriculture might be an outgrowth of some billionaire space hobbyists boondoggle, when we could actually take political action and prioritize those outcomes? Hoping Elon or Bezos accidentally funds something useful instead of taking away their control of resources seems very defeatist.
There is no reason to think life on Earth is unique, and very, very good reason to doubt it it. Which is good, because we are not remotely close to having the technological capacity to create a self-sustaining colony on a hostile planet, and we very likely never will be.
Worrying about saving humanity or terrestrial life from the sun going red giant in a billion years while people starve and we wreck the long term sustainability of our current environment is absurd to the point of black comedy. Thinking we can build our way out of the consequences of overconsumption is less ridiculous, but equally wrong.
Even if we somehow sent a bunch of human beings to Mars successfully, at great cost, and we somehow managed to get a contained, stable, environmentally closed food production system in place (as we have failed to do on Earth). And managed to maintain a breathable atmosphere for them, what then?
You now have an isolated, incredibly precarious slice of humanity millions of miles from home. All it takes is a single major systems failure, outbreak of human disease or crop blight, bad harvest, or act of sabotage to kill the population. It is a matter of when rather than if they die off. And if they somehow survive, you'll have a generation of offspring who have far less freedom to wander or margin to explore, geographically or biographically than any of their ancestors for many generations back.
The most optimistic outcome is that they are eventually the subjects of a rescue mission. A more likely one is that they become a cautionary tale. Either way, I'd rather not see time, lives, or resources wasted.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 11:48 AM on June 19
Why should we hope carbon capture or more efficient agriculture might be an outgrowth of some billionaire space hobbyists boondoggle, when we could actually take political action and prioritize those outcomes? Hoping Elon or Bezos accidentally funds something useful instead of taking away their control of resources seems very defeatist.
There is no reason to think life on Earth is unique, and very, very good reason to doubt it it. Which is good, because we are not remotely close to having the technological capacity to create a self-sustaining colony on a hostile planet, and we very likely never will be.
Worrying about saving humanity or terrestrial life from the sun going red giant in a billion years while people starve and we wreck the long term sustainability of our current environment is absurd to the point of black comedy. Thinking we can build our way out of the consequences of overconsumption is less ridiculous, but equally wrong.
Even if we somehow sent a bunch of human beings to Mars successfully, at great cost, and we somehow managed to get a contained, stable, environmentally closed food production system in place (as we have failed to do on Earth). And managed to maintain a breathable atmosphere for them, what then?
You now have an isolated, incredibly precarious slice of humanity millions of miles from home. All it takes is a single major systems failure, outbreak of human disease or crop blight, bad harvest, or act of sabotage to kill the population. It is a matter of when rather than if they die off. And if they somehow survive, you'll have a generation of offspring who have far less freedom to wander or margin to explore, geographically or biographically than any of their ancestors for many generations back.
The most optimistic outcome is that they are eventually the subjects of a rescue mission. A more likely one is that they become a cautionary tale. Either way, I'd rather not see time, lives, or resources wasted.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 11:48 AM on June 19
Our ability to determine whether a planet is genuinely lifeless is imperfect at best. And we have no way of telling whether it might be prebiotic in a way we will disrupt by introducing our microbiome to it.
No terran microbe that enjoys living inside a habitat or suit stands a chance on the surface of mars. If martian life exists it's got over a billion years of evolutionary adaption under it's belt that will ensure it easily outcompetes anything we bring.
And besides, we have already littered the martian surface with non-sterilised parachute fibres that are being further dispersed by wind as we speak.
Why should we hope carbon capture or more efficient agriculture might be an outgrowth of some billionaire space hobbyists boondoggle, when we could actually take political action and prioritize those outcomes?
History tells us that multiple competing approaches to a problem yields faster innovation. In a world where billions are being spent training LLMs I find it refreshing that some challenges still demand investment in improving agriculture.
Which is good, because we are not remotely close to having the technological capacity to create a self-sustaining colony on a hostile planet, and we very likely never will be.
I think you grossly underestimate humanity. Mars is quite rich in a variety of resources that can be utilised with well trodden technology. The atmosphere when combined with the considerable ice deposits is a feedstock for producing plastics, breathable atmosphere and other useful precursors. Basalt fibre can be produced directly from plentiful deposits of the mineral. The surface is littered with iron-nickel meteorites and it receives sufficient insolation for crop growth. With those alone we could achieve considerable things and I haven't even touched on our burgeoning ability to harness genetic engineered biochemistry.
The big challenge is landing significant seed mass on the surface but we have probably found a viable path in that regard.
People live in all sorts of seemly hostile locales. Our strength is our adaptability. You're selling your species short if you think we can never do this.
posted by neonamber at 9:15 PM on June 19
No terran microbe that enjoys living inside a habitat or suit stands a chance on the surface of mars. If martian life exists it's got over a billion years of evolutionary adaption under it's belt that will ensure it easily outcompetes anything we bring.
And besides, we have already littered the martian surface with non-sterilised parachute fibres that are being further dispersed by wind as we speak.
Why should we hope carbon capture or more efficient agriculture might be an outgrowth of some billionaire space hobbyists boondoggle, when we could actually take political action and prioritize those outcomes?
History tells us that multiple competing approaches to a problem yields faster innovation. In a world where billions are being spent training LLMs I find it refreshing that some challenges still demand investment in improving agriculture.
Which is good, because we are not remotely close to having the technological capacity to create a self-sustaining colony on a hostile planet, and we very likely never will be.
I think you grossly underestimate humanity. Mars is quite rich in a variety of resources that can be utilised with well trodden technology. The atmosphere when combined with the considerable ice deposits is a feedstock for producing plastics, breathable atmosphere and other useful precursors. Basalt fibre can be produced directly from plentiful deposits of the mineral. The surface is littered with iron-nickel meteorites and it receives sufficient insolation for crop growth. With those alone we could achieve considerable things and I haven't even touched on our burgeoning ability to harness genetic engineered biochemistry.
The big challenge is landing significant seed mass on the surface but we have probably found a viable path in that regard.
People live in all sorts of seemly hostile locales. Our strength is our adaptability. You're selling your species short if you think we can never do this.
posted by neonamber at 9:15 PM on June 19
People live in all sorts of seemly hostile locales. Our strength is our adaptability. You're selling your species short if you think we can never do this.
If we are willing to pour money down a hole with no actual return on investment, we might be able to keep a tiny, precarious population alive on Mars. It will not be a back up for Earth, because the people there will be dependent on Earth for support. Even if they somehow become self-sufficient, they will be in a far more precarious position than terrestrial life, because they will always be reliant on technology to keep the planet from killing them. That is never going to change. Terraforming is a physically unrealistic fantasy.
There is no practical benefit to this. It is just a fantasy rooted in our cultural need for a new frontier to exploit and ideas from popular fiction.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:39 PM on June 19 [1 favorite]
If we are willing to pour money down a hole with no actual return on investment, we might be able to keep a tiny, precarious population alive on Mars. It will not be a back up for Earth, because the people there will be dependent on Earth for support. Even if they somehow become self-sufficient, they will be in a far more precarious position than terrestrial life, because they will always be reliant on technology to keep the planet from killing them. That is never going to change. Terraforming is a physically unrealistic fantasy.
There is no practical benefit to this. It is just a fantasy rooted in our cultural need for a new frontier to exploit and ideas from popular fiction.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:39 PM on June 19 [1 favorite]
Terraforming is a physically unrealistic fantasy.
This I emphatically agree with.
Terraforming is an unachievable folly that is unnecessary for mars colonisation. If humanity ever settles mars they will be an indoor population with the exception of limited suited-up excursions. The surface will be the domain of robots/ROVs and heavy industry.
There is no practical benefit to this.
I think the impetus for hyperlocal food production alone would be a big enough carrot to justify this. Even if it only made a relatively small dent in traditional animal agriculture on Earth that could represent a massive emissions reduction.
We shall see I suppose.
posted by neonamber at 10:56 PM on June 19
This I emphatically agree with.
Terraforming is an unachievable folly that is unnecessary for mars colonisation. If humanity ever settles mars they will be an indoor population with the exception of limited suited-up excursions. The surface will be the domain of robots/ROVs and heavy industry.
There is no practical benefit to this.
I think the impetus for hyperlocal food production alone would be a big enough carrot to justify this. Even if it only made a relatively small dent in traditional animal agriculture on Earth that could represent a massive emissions reduction.
We shall see I suppose.
posted by neonamber at 10:56 PM on June 19
« Older Subbed by: xX_geocitiesSUBCREW95_Xx | 'Tis almost the longest day .. your longest day ..... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nickggully at 8:56 PM on June 16 [1 favorite]