4 ms·

I am not being sarcastic. Compared to terraforming, or even colonizing a planet to the point where it becomes a serious alternative to Earth, they are utterly t

by banach 10y ago

I am not being sarcastic. Compared to terraforming, or even colonizing a planet to the point where it becomes a serious alternative to Earth, they are utterly trivial.

ivan_gammel 10y ago
People are not going to abandon the Earth, so we have to protect it in all ways possible. But it's still not a reason for abandoning our advancement to space. We do have resources to move in both directions.
eganist 10y ago
You're talking about philosophical and behavioral changes on a global and generational scale. Compared to those, scientific advancements in terraforming are positively trivial.
- devoply 10y ago
  If we don't learn then we will repeat our mistakes wherever we go. Wherever you go, there _you_ are.
- banach 10y ago
  Many of the cultural advances commonly associated with civilized society (universal suffrage, free speech, public education, public healthcare, a living wage and a reasonable work week, etc) were all inconceivable just 150 years ago. Today, they are a reality for a large, growing part of the world's population. These changes all took a concerted effort from the population to realize, but did not require pie-in-the-sky level advances in technology. Moreover, unless we want to reproduce our current quagmire on whatever planet we colonize, we'll need these reforms to happen anyway.
- WJW 10y ago
  But establishing a extraplanetary colony would require much much more than just advances in terraforming. All but the smallest colonies would have deal with all the politics they brought from earth, in addition to any differences that develop over there. The tight resource budget of early outposts would probably not allow for much personal freedom and it's not like you can easily make a homestead or something in a place where you can't even breathe without proper infrastructure. Also, it would require massive resources to get enough people to a colony to make it worthwhile in the first place. Deciding to allocate those resources (and deciding who gets to go) would inherently be a highly politicized process.
saganus 10y ago
I think the issue is more with own human nature, as usual. Terraforming another planet is an engineering problem (of course, not only an engineering problem), and in the end it's something that in theory can be accomplished as long as we "work it out". Changing the human nature however, is not trivial by any measure. It's very hard for individuals to change, and even more so for groups and even more so for societies. There are even those that say change in a person is impossible. Whereas an engineering problem can (probably) be solved regardless of whether humans change or not. One could even argue that advancing our technology has helped us change as humans (for the better hopefully), but the other way around doesn't necessarily hold. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for us to be able to realize the damage we are doing to this planet, whether or not we colonize other ones (ideally I'd like both). However improving our engineering skills seems much more likely than improving our nature does.
- banach 10y ago
  I don't think the issues that are putting Earth in danger are the result of some immutable, unfortunate human nature. I think they are the result of a system that could be changed as easily as it was put in place. Many of the pathologies of the modern society were consciously manufactured (c.f. "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays), and all we need to do is to realize this, and start changing things. Luckily, the young generation is far less bought into the current system, and I believe we will see a move to a saner way of life over the coming decades.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    "Luckily, the young generation is far less bought into the current system, and I believe we will see a move to a saner way of life over the coming decades." I hope you're right, and don't want to say that we're doomed. But look at the 1960's and '70s: the young people of that time were far more committed to a radically different life than the young people of today -- and were so on a much larger scale, with the sense of the immanent revolutionary overthrow of society being in the air. While their dedication was not fruitless (bringing us the likes of environmentalism and feminism, both of which are very much in the mainstream today) we still wound up where we are today -- very far from their vision of a radically free, non-hierarchical, loving, and "back to the earth" society. The changes that young people seek aren't always necessarily positive either. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good. Witness Pol Pot, China's Cultural Revolution, the Hitler Youth, etc. Radical changes are often very bloody, and result in a system worse than what it replaced.
xupybd 10y ago
I'd say the opposite. Terraforming is a massive engineering challenge. People rise to engineering challenges and create amazing technologies. They don't do so well at changing human nature.

by banach 10y ago

I am not being sarcastic. Compared to terraforming, or even colonizing a planet to the point where it becomes a serious alternative to Earth, they are utterly trivial.

ivan_gammel 10y ago

People are not going to abandon the Earth, so we have to protect it in all ways possible. But it's still not a reason for abandoning our advancement to space. We do have resources to move in both directions.

eganist 10y ago

You're talking about philosophical and behavioral changes on a global and generational scale. Compared to those, scientific advancements in terraforming are positively trivial.

devoply 10y ago
If we don't learn then we will repeat our mistakes wherever we go. Wherever you go, there _you_ are.
banach 10y ago
Many of the cultural advances commonly associated with civilized society (universal suffrage, free speech, public education, public healthcare, a living wage and a reasonable work week, etc) were all inconceivable just 150 years ago. Today, they are a reality for a large, growing part of the world's population. These changes all took a concerted effort from the population to realize, but did not require pie-in-the-sky level advances in technology. Moreover, unless we want to reproduce our current quagmire on whatever planet we colonize, we'll need these reforms to happen anyway.
WJW 10y ago
But establishing a extraplanetary colony would require much much more than just advances in terraforming. All but the smallest colonies would have deal with all the politics they brought from earth, in addition to any differences that develop over there. The tight resource budget of early outposts would probably not allow for much personal freedom and it's not like you can easily make a homestead or something in a place where you can't even breathe without proper infrastructure. Also, it would require massive resources to get enough people to a colony to make it worthwhile in the first place. Deciding to allocate those resources (and deciding who gets to go) would inherently be a highly politicized process.

saganus 10y ago

I think the issue is more with own human nature, as usual. Terraforming another planet is an engineering problem (of course, not only an engineering problem), and in the end it's something that in theory can be accomplished as long as we "work it out". Changing the human nature however, is not trivial by any measure. It's very hard for individuals to change, and even more so for groups and even more so for societies. There are even those that say change in a person is impossible. Whereas an engineering problem can (probably) be solved regardless of whether humans change or not. One could even argue that advancing our technology has helped us change as humans (for the better hopefully), but the other way around doesn't necessarily hold. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for us to be able to realize the damage we are doing to this planet, whether or not we colonize other ones (ideally I'd like both). However improving our engineering skills seems much more likely than improving our nature does.

banach 10y ago
I don't think the issues that are putting Earth in danger are the result of some immutable, unfortunate human nature. I think they are the result of a system that could be changed as easily as it was put in place. Many of the pathologies of the modern society were consciously manufactured (c.f. "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays), and all we need to do is to realize this, and start changing things. Luckily, the young generation is far less bought into the current system, and I believe we will see a move to a saner way of life over the coming decades.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  "Luckily, the young generation is far less bought into the current system, and I believe we will see a move to a saner way of life over the coming decades." I hope you're right, and don't want to say that we're doomed. But look at the 1960's and '70s: the young people of that time were far more committed to a radically different life than the young people of today -- and were so on a much larger scale, with the sense of the immanent revolutionary overthrow of society being in the air. While their dedication was not fruitless (bringing us the likes of environmentalism and feminism, both of which are very much in the mainstream today) we still wound up where we are today -- very far from their vision of a radically free, non-hierarchical, loving, and "back to the earth" society. The changes that young people seek aren't always necessarily positive either. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good. Witness Pol Pot, China's Cultural Revolution, the Hitler Youth, etc. Radical changes are often very bloody, and result in a system worse than what it replaced.

xupybd 10y ago

I'd say the opposite. Terraforming is a massive engineering challenge. People rise to engineering challenges and create amazing technologies. They don't do so well at changing human nature.