4 ms·

www.et3.com gradually leading up to the top of everest, jettisoning the capsule (6,500 km/h (4,000 mph)) to break out of the atmosphere. I have not done the ma

www.et3.com gradually leading up to the top of everest, jettisoning the capsule (6,500 km/h (4,000 mph)) to break out of the atmosphere. I have not done the math, physics, etc on this, but it's an interesting idea worth exploring. But that said, do we really belong in space when we cannot care for our own? Wouldn't that be akin to giving sugar to ants? only multiplying suffering and cruelty exponentially in space? Perhaps a refactoring of our culture and our methods of using/allocating/expending resources should be our first priority.

grogenaut 11y ago
If people had waited to leave Europe until the 1970s the culture had been "refactored" enough for the masses, I doubt the world would have advanced as far as it had and the pressure of the population growth from industrialization would have caused some real issues. Actually I think it might be refactored even worse for the masses. Letting the average person go out and build new things helped a lot. Also, do you really think we can only fix one problem at a time? Did the birth of the transistor stop the civil rights movement?
- anon8764 11y ago
  Perhaps technology has advanced too fast for the "culture". Perhaps we should design our intentions before we build the tech, and not the other way around. Look at NASA for inspiration on design and forethought.
  - grogenaut 11y ago
    The problem with this is you're designing based on your current world view and assumptions. When does this type of planning ever work and actually stand up to 20 years of history? 40? 100? In the 50's the us was DESIGNED around the car and suburbs. That worked well.
    - anon8764 11y ago
      My logic is based on numbers. Earth Population, Imaginary lines in the sand, War over money. These are not signs of intelligence, especially when they have only 1 planet to survive on that gets more populated every day with little regard to long-term resource management, although I am proud of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. :) This type of planning worked for Voyager (NASA/JPL). fyi: cars suck. Dirty, inefficient, and it follows the same logic of giving every person in a 200 person hotel an individual elevator. It makes no sense, when you can instead design cities and transportation to be like the site I linked above (www.et3.com). It's their choice though, if they want faster horses instead of cars, so be it. If they want faster cars instead of et3, so be it. They prop and fall on their own sword I suppose.
      - grogenaut 11y ago
        You mistake that I don't agree with you about how it should be. I just think we should deal with how it is and manage the chaotic system.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "The problem with this is you're designing based on your current world view and assumptions. When does this type of planning ever work and actually stand up to 20 years of history?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio... With a few exceptions, that's been working since the 70's.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    I don't know why you're being downvoted, those ideas make perfect sense to me. Thoughts about how we want to structure our society should drive decisions on technology, we shouldn't have to adapt society to new technology if the society decides against using it.
noir_lord 11y ago
Pushing boundaries technologically has a tendency to pull others along with it, accessing space cheaply would have the potential to create entire new markets and access to new resources all of which would help in the long term everyone else.
reitanqild 11y ago
(anon8764 was downvoted when I wrote this.) I disagree but still upvoted this to get it to 0. I find the tought interesting but wrong. It seems more suffering is caused by various misguided attempts at refactoring culture etc and less by technology. National socialism and communism are two widely known attempts at refactoring culture that has created more misery than all technological advances combined so far.
- anon8764 11y ago
  I prefer a Resource-based Economy (rather than the failed money-strived attempts) that has a central hub for resource-distribution to all humans based on global reserves to raise the standard of living for all instead of a select few which every monetary system has ultimately created. This would make an interesting topic to discuss how to design this system with our current tech, but that's another thread altogether.
iamcurious 11y ago
Interesting, let's say it should be our first priority, how does that translate into action? Please remember that mobilizing large amounts of people towards a goal is hard problem, specially when the goal involves copious amounts of research and experiment.
- anon8764 11y ago
  I personally believe people do not deserve to go to space yet. They haven't mastered the ability to house, clothe, and feed the human family yet, despite having the technical ability to do so. As a result of this, you see the derivatives that exist today. Walk among Miami at night and you see homeless crackheads muttering to themselves while sipping on beer. The conditions that cause a person to do this would be probabilistically lower with a society that cares about one another more [designed-in] instead of fighting amongst each-other for paper slips. If we absolutely need to go to space, we require research to determine the amount of materials needed to build this track length, and the renewability of those materials in reference to the earth. If this request for the materials meets a certain threshold, it will be dispensed, otherwise, the remaining materials can be reserved for further research to create synthetic alternatives. It helps to have a global database of known resources and their reserves, in fact, it might be a crucial requirement. Imagine culling redis for this information, it sends a request to the global cybernetic hub, and it permits or denies the request, along with the terminal node you requested it to be sent to... example: I request 13 Ounces of Gold (AU) at terminal #324-214-495-2341 to perform an experiment. (Since gold is currently in enough abundance for my request it is sent to my terminal as soon as technically possible, and any of the resource I do not use or can scrap back to the global hub, is done so)
  - iamcurious 11y ago
    So all resources are to be distributed from a central organization. Pray, who will be decide this? How will disputes will be solved when, inevitably, an armed group decides to use resources some other way? Also, the whole point of leaving earth is leaving scarcity. There are meteorites with gold, we can and we should mine them as we see fit.

grogenaut 11y ago

If people had waited to leave Europe until the 1970s the culture had been "refactored" enough for the masses, I doubt the world would have advanced as far as it had and the pressure of the population growth from industrialization would have caused some real issues. Actually I think it might be refactored even worse for the masses. Letting the average person go out and build new things helped a lot. Also, do you really think we can only fix one problem at a time? Did the birth of the transistor stop the civil rights movement?

anon8764 11y ago
Perhaps technology has advanced too fast for the "culture". Perhaps we should design our intentions before we build the tech, and not the other way around. Look at NASA for inspiration on design and forethought.
- grogenaut 11y ago
  The problem with this is you're designing based on your current world view and assumptions. When does this type of planning ever work and actually stand up to 20 years of history? 40? 100? In the 50's the us was DESIGNED around the car and suburbs. That worked well.
  - anon8764 11y ago
    My logic is based on numbers. Earth Population, Imaginary lines in the sand, War over money. These are not signs of intelligence, especially when they have only 1 planet to survive on that gets more populated every day with little regard to long-term resource management, although I am proud of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. :) This type of planning worked for Voyager (NASA/JPL). fyi: cars suck. Dirty, inefficient, and it follows the same logic of giving every person in a 200 person hotel an individual elevator. It makes no sense, when you can instead design cities and transportation to be like the site I linked above (www.et3.com). It's their choice though, if they want faster horses instead of cars, so be it. If they want faster cars instead of et3, so be it. They prop and fall on their own sword I suppose.
    - grogenaut 11y ago
      You mistake that I don't agree with you about how it should be. I just think we should deal with how it is and manage the chaotic system.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "The problem with this is you're designing based on your current world view and assumptions. When does this type of planning ever work and actually stand up to 20 years of history?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio... With a few exceptions, that's been working since the 70's.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted, those ideas make perfect sense to me. Thoughts about how we want to structure our society should drive decisions on technology, we shouldn't have to adapt society to new technology if the society decides against using it.

noir_lord 11y ago

Pushing boundaries technologically has a tendency to pull others along with it, accessing space cheaply would have the potential to create entire new markets and access to new resources all of which would help in the long term everyone else.

reitanqild 11y ago

(anon8764 was downvoted when I wrote this.) I disagree but still upvoted this to get it to 0. I find the tought interesting but wrong. It seems more suffering is caused by various misguided attempts at refactoring culture etc and less by technology. National socialism and communism are two widely known attempts at refactoring culture that has created more misery than all technological advances combined so far.

anon8764 11y ago
I prefer a Resource-based Economy (rather than the failed money-strived attempts) that has a central hub for resource-distribution to all humans based on global reserves to raise the standard of living for all instead of a select few which every monetary system has ultimately created. This would make an interesting topic to discuss how to design this system with our current tech, but that's another thread altogether.

iamcurious 11y ago

Interesting, let's say it should be our first priority, how does that translate into action? Please remember that mobilizing large amounts of people towards a goal is hard problem, specially when the goal involves copious amounts of research and experiment.

anon8764 11y ago
I personally believe people do not deserve to go to space yet. They haven't mastered the ability to house, clothe, and feed the human family yet, despite having the technical ability to do so. As a result of this, you see the derivatives that exist today. Walk among Miami at night and you see homeless crackheads muttering to themselves while sipping on beer. The conditions that cause a person to do this would be probabilistically lower with a society that cares about one another more [designed-in] instead of fighting amongst each-other for paper slips. If we absolutely need to go to space, we require research to determine the amount of materials needed to build this track length, and the renewability of those materials in reference to the earth. If this request for the materials meets a certain threshold, it will be dispensed, otherwise, the remaining materials can be reserved for further research to create synthetic alternatives. It helps to have a global database of known resources and their reserves, in fact, it might be a crucial requirement. Imagine culling redis for this information, it sends a request to the global cybernetic hub, and it permits or denies the request, along with the terminal node you requested it to be sent to... example: I request 13 Ounces of Gold (AU) at terminal #324-214-495-2341 to perform an experiment. (Since gold is currently in enough abundance for my request it is sent to my terminal as soon as technically possible, and any of the resource I do not use or can scrap back to the global hub, is done so)
- iamcurious 11y ago
  So all resources are to be distributed from a central organization. Pray, who will be decide this? How will disputes will be solved when, inevitably, an armed group decides to use resources some other way? Also, the whole point of leaving earth is leaving scarcity. There are meteorites with gold, we can and we should mine them as we see fit.