[RD] Pessimism about Mars

[hobbsyoyo]

Isn't spaceX currently trying to figure out how to best set up fuel factories on the surface of Mars?

Yes but that's a completely different problem than food production or long term radiation or the effects of permanent 1/3 g. It's also a much more immediate problem, one that has to be tackled before we can ever hope to land there, much less live there. I don't have any information on what they're currently working on related to colonization though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

 

[warpus]

Yes but that's a completely different problem than food production or long term radiation or the effects of permanent 1/3 g. It's also a much more immediate problem, one that has to be tackled before we can ever hope to land there, much less live there. I don't have any information on what they're currently working on related to colonization though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

I'd think itt would be odd if they were planning on having people live on Mars without first figuring out how to keep them alive, though. I think I did see something about food production as well, but granted nothing about low gravity effects on the colonists.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not really when you consider what a monumental challenge it is just to get there and the fact that they have to turn profit in the short term before the longer term problems come into play. And I vaguely remember Elon during one of his videos talking about how the primary focus of the company was on transportation to Mars, not setting up a society there.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Not really when you consider what a monumental challenge it is just to get there and the fact that they have to turn profit in the short term before the longer term problems come into play. And I vaguely remember Elon during one of his videos talking about how the primary focus of the company was on transportation to Mars, not setting up a society there.

Not going to make selling tickets for the 1st voyage easy.
One way ticket and you're on your own when you get there.

 

[warpus]

Not really when you consider what a monumental challenge it is just to get there and the fact that they have to turn profit in the short term before the longer term problems come into play. And I vaguely remember Elon during one of his videos talking about how the primary focus of the company was on transportation to Mars, not setting up a society there.

Yeah, I remember that as well. They want other companies to play the part of the colonists, right?

But somebody has to figure out these problems, otherwise there will be no need to transport stuff to/from Mars. Surely they are keeping all of this in mind. Otherwise seems like a huge waste of money to build a transportation network for destinations nobody will ever travel to

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Might need some of those hardy pioneers after all.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not going to make selling tickets for the 1st voyage easy.
One way ticket and you're on your own when you get there.

They've been insistent that the tickets are two-way. That's why they have to work out propellant production at the destination.

 

[AmazonQueen]

They've been insistent that the tickets are two-way. That's why they have to work out propellant production at the destination.

Sounds more like tourism than colonisation then.
Quite a few early colonies in the Americas failed, I don't think a laissez-faire approach will work for space colonisation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sounds more like tourism than colonisation then.
Quite a few early colonies in the Americas failed, I don't think a laissez-faire approach will work for space colonisation.

It likely will eventually (even just for initial camps for resource harvesting done by machines rather than people). Problem is that property rights could become complicated, even more so than they are already.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There may be tourists but the primary thing is to let people know they can go back to Earth if they've changed their mind.

 

[Mouthwash]

That will likely sabotage the whole project (assuming they're being honest). People don't adapt without the necessity.

Maybe set up an Australia-style penal colony?

 

[Narz]

An ecosystem without carnivores would produce tremendous suffering, being constantly just under the Malthusian threshold for collapse. Even if it didn't start out that way, adaptation to a predator-free environment would be rapid.

If we can get sustainable life going on other planets we can solve this problem as well.

Is a life without suffering even a life as we know it? and, furthermore: Is suffering as a negation not necessary for any kind of happiness or joy in the first place? those are two things I am inherently convinced of, I truly believe there can be no happy life without suffering, for happiness without its counterpart will always devolve into sterility, and that is arguably worse than suffering.

I don't agree with this at all. It's just a failure of imagination to think we need the bad with the good. IMO suffering always degrades happiness. Being slighted by someone rude may help you appreciate kindness but true suffering, having your trust betrayed repeatedly doesn't lead to more joy when people are reliable, it creates a script where true trust is impossible.

Who are the most joyful humans? Children of course. The same ones who have suffered the least. Children who suffer much in childhood generally have a reduced capacity for joy.

A child has the capacity to appreciate a beautiful garden EVERYDAY, you don't have to lock him in the closet to appreciate it, he just appreciates it.

Reducing suffering in the human mind is a technical problem. We didn't evolve to be joyful, we evolved to survive, get laid at least a few times & create offspring. Our default state is anxious, craving, etc.

Really terraforming our minds is where it's at. Designer humans won't be about getting a baby blue eyes or brown hair but humans with increased resilience, focus & confidence, better brains in short.

People with a higher default happiness state will be more productive, they won't be susceptible to fear mongering politicians, they'll suffer less addcition. Life with joy turned up & suffering turned down is the goal of any human endevour anyway.

but one could, in theory, devise a system that does not need carnivores in order to stay stable is what El_Mac was arguing, and you missed his point by a mile

Yeah, just tweak evolution so creatures don't always maximize reproduction when the coast is clear of predators.

Reality is wack, we need to better it. Just because we live in a world of suffering & predation doesn't mean we have to accept it. I appauld those who want to expand life onto other planets for the spirit of "if you can, we should" however unlikely I think we will actually be able to do it anytime soon (if at all).

 

[El_Machinae]

You don't even need to get rid of predators. I'm not worried about the food web below certain thresholds of sentience. Insects can do a lot

 

[Hygro]

We'll need a space station with different gravity level wheels to rehab our Martians back to Earthlings.

 

[Estebonrober]

Mars is definitely possible if hard. Moon first. Both will take pioneers, I'd imagine political impedance here at home will lead many to take the trip to live "free" away from the socialists and such. The 1/3g thing will lead to very different humans over a few generations. They will be Martians, sex would be interesting. . .

me neither, my statement was really explicitly about how humans interact with different species (both aliens and terrestrial creatures). one other interesting factor to consider is that suffering on earth grows in proportion to population size (if you want accept the premise that life is inherently suffering), which would mean that as humans spread (if, and only if, we keep up our horrid treatment of other lifeforms like cattle and so on) then suffering will spread, too, in the same proportion. lots of "ifs", I know, but moral arguments always, always hinge on "ifs".

it's an interesting ethical question: is it morally justified to put creatures into existance which will experience nothing more than suffering, does their "right" to be alive outweigh the cons of constant suffering, and is it in any way better to have less conscious creatures suffering?

if you extend this argument you can, of course, also apply it to human life, but that never leads to good discussion so we'll keep with the cattle example. more life means more suffering. some beings are put into existance only for our benefit, and have to suffer their entire life. does more suffering animals automatically equal more bad, or is this a fallacy, like saying one human life is necessarily worth more than 2 human lifes?

You all have done this dance before. I just wanted to agree that life is suffering to some degree, but this is like a good and evil argument. You can't really have one without the other, they are subjective. So is suffering to a large extent. Death is happiness for all life eventually. Anyways it feeds into the kind of nihilism that leads to why bother existing at all and that frankly misses the obvious point. You are.

 

[Imaus]

I'm not saying that there won't be any colonization of planets, only that controlled environments might ultimately prove more popular than the capriciousness and alienness of planetary environments.

Until they're popped by RKKVs. Glass and tin can settlements aren't so much fun then.

Mars is definitely possible if hard. Moon first. Both will take pioneers, I'd imagine political impedance here at home will lead many to take the trip to live "free" away from the socialists and such. The 1/3g thing will lead to very different humans over a few generations. They will be Martians, sex would be interesting. . .

Pfft. "Away from the Socialists"? Space isn't some libertarian sandbox. Everything is controlled and overseen. Everyone has to work together. It's an authoritarian's wet dream. Water, air, space, it's all controlled and doled out. At the very least, you get have a 'benevolent' authoritarian socialist system set down. At the worst, you get North-Korea in a Tin Can.

 

[Estebonrober]

Until they're popped by RKKVs. Glass and tin can settlements aren't so much fun then.



Pfft. "Away from the Socialists"? Space isn't some libertarian sandbox. Everything is controlled and overseen. Everyone has to work together. It's an authoritarian's wet dream. Water, air, space, it's all controlled and doled out. At the very least, you get have a 'benevolent' authoritarian socialist system set down. At the worst, you get North-Korea in a Tin Can.

Yea I'm pretty aware of that, but in the US now its the NKs and Russians before democrats so. . .

 

[MagisterCultuum]

No, put in the ground by God so that humans could dig it up at great expense, and then burn it to emit freedom molecules into the atmosphere

How about this compromise position: God put them near the surface so we would have easy access to the freedom molecules, but the Devil moved them deeper down to make it harder for us to help God bring Earth's temperature up to the level he always wanted.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Anyways it feeds into the kind of nihilism that leads to why bother existing at all and that frankly misses the obvious point. You are.

thanks. maybe I should stop posting for a while.

 

[Estebonrober]

thanks. maybe I should stop posting for a while.

I truly appreciate your contributions so you will be missed but it helps to walk away. I try to spend every weekend with no social media type things. I still play games, but it’s not political at all.