14 ms·

Yes let's stop all scientific and technological progress which isn't directly related to achieving utopia on earth, until a hypothetical point in the future tha

Yes let's stop all scientific and technological progress which isn't directly related to achieving utopia on earth, until a hypothetical point in the future that will never come. Is everything you do and find important in life directly related to improving our ecosystem and eliminating nuclear stockpiles? Do you think it's ok to be interested, for example, in web development, but not in space colonization? Maybe instead of attempting to force artificial goals on human society, you should acknowledge the fact that people care about more things than your notion of "quality". Denying them those things in the name of some artificial pragmatism is exactly the opposite of pragmatism - it ignores the realities of human society, ignores the actual wishes of people, and replaces them with an artificial ideology. I would much rather live in a world where some people care about clean energy and sustainability, others about colonizing space, others about mathematics, and others about art, etc., than in a world where the majority of those things are shunned because of arguments such as yours. The latter world is a far more miserable one, and a miserable reality isn't a solution to anything.

paulryanrogers 10y ago
If humans cannot live sustainably on Earth then what hope is there of existing in any form elsewhere?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kitsunesoba 10y ago
  I'm not sure the efficiency of the whole of humanity on earth and the efficiency of a comparably tiny colonial group is related in any way. There's a ton of momentum to overcome here on earth, and any change will need to occur across vast swaths of the population to be effective. That's an extremely tall order and it's extremely unlikely, as humans tend to ignore impending danger if there's no immediate consequence involved. Significant change will be seen at a generational pace at best. Colonists, on the other hand, must be efficient if they wish to exist for longer than a few weeks, and they're a small and smart enough of a group that maintaining efficiency isn't an issue. Efficiency is a way of life for them. If anything, extremely low waste yet modern lifestyles will get their start in planetary colonies and make their way back to earth, not vice versa.
  - ryhamz 10y ago
    I think he means in the long run. His claim is that eventually you have a large group of average intelligence humans on our new planet and we decided to pursue colonization tech instead of sustainable energy and environment tech. Of course, my bet is that we will reach the point where we can sustain a planet before we run out of planets (assuming we colonize a planet). My actual bet is that it's gg for humanity.
- acchow 10y ago
  Well, if the Earth really gets that bad (e.g. the entire surface is all water, no land; or extremely destructive weather events; or too dark because sunlight can't reach our surface), it might actually be easier to set up self-contained (bubble) cities on another planet than on earth itself. But if you're talking about terraforming, then if we could terraform another planet we could probably re-terraform earth itself.
  - lexhaynes 10y ago
    No it wouldn't. Not at all.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    Even if all glaciers on Earth melted and went into the ocean, sea level would "only" grow by about 65 meters. The issue with climate change is that higher temperature means more energy and thus more extreme climate. Plus there's desertification but that is, to some extent, a different issue.
  - isostatic 10y ago
    We'd still have protection from cosmic radiation. Antarctica is far more livable than anywhere else off earth, but I don't see us living there in a self-sustained fashion. Space exploration and colonisation is important, but it's not an answer for the Earth's problems. It may lead to new technologies that will help on earth though - not least the requirement for sustainability.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Perhaps there are advantages that other planets have, that we don't have on earth. There are certainly massive disadvantages, life support, ect, but there could be things like large amounts of plentiful fuel.
banach 10y ago
I think that the pursuit of knowledge is a really good way to spend your time, but I do not like when simple solutions to real problems are sidelined in favor of the latest buzzword-oriented technology fetish. In times when the president-elect has announced that he is shutting down NASA's climate change research, ostensibly to fund space exploration, I think we need to remind ourselves that any work we chose to pursue has an opportunity cost. I really believe that we can address the main issues facing our society with pretty simple means, but that will not happen if everyone is too busy looking for problems to solve using their favorite tool. In the terminology of Hacker News, I guess what I am arguing is that colonization is bike-shedding for the reforms that I have mentioned in my first comment.
- acchow 10y ago
  I think we should colonize other planets because we can. Not as a solution to any problem. I will defer to The West Wing to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yUHnERJ0zs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yUHnERJ0zs
  - banach 10y ago
    OK, you had me at "because we can" :)
  - samstave 10y ago
    So she was basically trolling him to get to see him all puffed up :-)
  - mrec 10y ago
    I think The West Wing has better explanations than that. I was sure your link was going to be to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s92lsTMcZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s92lsTMcZQ EDIT: this one has a bit more context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HzHSeV9v8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HzHSeV9v8
  - kilpela 10y ago
    What you are describing is inverse vandalism. If we ignore the problems of here and now, the realization of a future where we colonize the stars may never occur. Obligatory quote: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. - Dr. Ian Malcolm. Our focus should not be on whether we can do something. We should carefully consider why we are doing something and ensure we aren't acting in a self-destructive way.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
I'd like to live in a world where my grandchildren can live at all, so sustainability seems pretty damn important to me.
phs318u 10y ago
I don't believe parent was suggesting that current problems be the sole focus of our attention to the exclusion of all else. However there is a valid point to be made with respect to people's ability (or lack thereof) to line up behind even the most moderate of global proposals. For example, in the grand scheme of things we (human race) can't even accept a slight change to our lifestyle and moderate economic imposition in order to avoid significant climate change that will have far greater human and economic costs. On what possible basis then is it reasonable to expect that people would be willing to make an even greater investment in a far more marginal venture? I get the feeling that some people view space colonisation as a kind of Deus ex machina that will magically give us a fresh start, unbound by the mistakes of the past. They don't realise that the mistakes of the past are carried with us wherever we go since they live between our ears. I'm all for basic science and reaching for frontiers, but as a species we are proving incapable of making the mental and social leaps that the next evolutionary steps require of us. Would love to be proven wrong. :-(
- xupybd 10y ago
  Yeah but some of us think the social problems we currently inflict on our selves aren't going anywhere soon. So let's see what we can find out in space while everyone is still trying to find a way to play nice back on earth. It's not going to fix anything back here but man it would be kick ass. That's enough reason for me.
pasquinelli 10y ago
"I would much rather live in a world where some people care about clean energy and sustainability, others about colonizing space, others about mathematics, and others about art, etc." Right, if someone cares about something, they tend to talk about it. If they think it's important, they think it should be given priority over other things. But then this is exactly what you're replying to and exactly what you're disagreeing with. As if somehow by saying, "I think other things are more important than colonizing space" stops anybody doing anything. The tyranny of someone with an opinion different from yours, voicing it.
crsmithdev 10y ago
Your first paragraph there is a straw man -- that's not even remotely what was suggested, and you know it.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Yes let's stop all scientific and technological progress which isn't directly related to achieving utopia on earth, until a hypothetical point in the future that will never come. Slapstick arguments don't help. The whole point is that none of the proposals offered in the comment above yours are even remotely "utopian". They're all pretty much common sense (or should be by now), actually.

paulryanrogers 10y ago

If humans cannot live sustainably on Earth then what hope is there of existing in any form elsewhere?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kitsunesoba 10y ago
I'm not sure the efficiency of the whole of humanity on earth and the efficiency of a comparably tiny colonial group is related in any way. There's a ton of momentum to overcome here on earth, and any change will need to occur across vast swaths of the population to be effective. That's an extremely tall order and it's extremely unlikely, as humans tend to ignore impending danger if there's no immediate consequence involved. Significant change will be seen at a generational pace at best. Colonists, on the other hand, must be efficient if they wish to exist for longer than a few weeks, and they're a small and smart enough of a group that maintaining efficiency isn't an issue. Efficiency is a way of life for them. If anything, extremely low waste yet modern lifestyles will get their start in planetary colonies and make their way back to earth, not vice versa.
- ryhamz 10y ago
  I think he means in the long run. His claim is that eventually you have a large group of average intelligence humans on our new planet and we decided to pursue colonization tech instead of sustainable energy and environment tech. Of course, my bet is that we will reach the point where we can sustain a planet before we run out of planets (assuming we colonize a planet). My actual bet is that it's gg for humanity.
acchow 10y ago
Well, if the Earth really gets that bad (e.g. the entire surface is all water, no land; or extremely destructive weather events; or too dark because sunlight can't reach our surface), it might actually be easier to set up self-contained (bubble) cities on another planet than on earth itself. But if you're talking about terraforming, then if we could terraform another planet we could probably re-terraform earth itself.
- lexhaynes 10y ago
  No it wouldn't. Not at all.
- bonzini 10y ago
  Even if all glaciers on Earth melted and went into the ocean, sea level would "only" grow by about 65 meters. The issue with climate change is that higher temperature means more energy and thus more extreme climate. Plus there's desertification but that is, to some extent, a different issue.
- isostatic 10y ago
  We'd still have protection from cosmic radiation. Antarctica is far more livable than anywhere else off earth, but I don't see us living there in a self-sustained fashion. Space exploration and colonisation is important, but it's not an answer for the Earth's problems. It may lead to new technologies that will help on earth though - not least the requirement for sustainability.
stale2002 10y ago
Perhaps there are advantages that other planets have, that we don't have on earth. There are certainly massive disadvantages, life support, ect, but there could be things like large amounts of plentiful fuel.

banach 10y ago

I think that the pursuit of knowledge is a really good way to spend your time, but I do not like when simple solutions to real problems are sidelined in favor of the latest buzzword-oriented technology fetish. In times when the president-elect has announced that he is shutting down NASA's climate change research, ostensibly to fund space exploration, I think we need to remind ourselves that any work we chose to pursue has an opportunity cost. I really believe that we can address the main issues facing our society with pretty simple means, but that will not happen if everyone is too busy looking for problems to solve using their favorite tool. In the terminology of Hacker News, I guess what I am arguing is that colonization is bike-shedding for the reforms that I have mentioned in my first comment.

acchow 10y ago
I think we should colonize other planets because we can. Not as a solution to any problem. I will defer to The West Wing to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yUHnERJ0zs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yUHnERJ0zs
- banach 10y ago
  OK, you had me at "because we can" :)
- samstave 10y ago
  So she was basically trolling him to get to see him all puffed up :-)
- mrec 10y ago
  I think The West Wing has better explanations than that. I was sure your link was going to be to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s92lsTMcZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s92lsTMcZQ EDIT: this one has a bit more context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HzHSeV9v8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HzHSeV9v8
- kilpela 10y ago
  What you are describing is inverse vandalism. If we ignore the problems of here and now, the realization of a future where we colonize the stars may never occur. Obligatory quote: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. - Dr. Ian Malcolm. Our focus should not be on whether we can do something. We should carefully consider why we are doing something and ensure we aren't acting in a self-destructive way.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

I'd like to live in a world where my grandchildren can live at all, so sustainability seems pretty damn important to me.

phs318u 10y ago

I don't believe parent was suggesting that current problems be the sole focus of our attention to the exclusion of all else. However there is a valid point to be made with respect to people's ability (or lack thereof) to line up behind even the most moderate of global proposals. For example, in the grand scheme of things we (human race) can't even accept a slight change to our lifestyle and moderate economic imposition in order to avoid significant climate change that will have far greater human and economic costs. On what possible basis then is it reasonable to expect that people would be willing to make an even greater investment in a far more marginal venture? I get the feeling that some people view space colonisation as a kind of Deus ex machina that will magically give us a fresh start, unbound by the mistakes of the past. They don't realise that the mistakes of the past are carried with us wherever we go since they live between our ears. I'm all for basic science and reaching for frontiers, but as a species we are proving incapable of making the mental and social leaps that the next evolutionary steps require of us. Would love to be proven wrong. :-(

xupybd 10y ago
Yeah but some of us think the social problems we currently inflict on our selves aren't going anywhere soon. So let's see what we can find out in space while everyone is still trying to find a way to play nice back on earth. It's not going to fix anything back here but man it would be kick ass. That's enough reason for me.

pasquinelli 10y ago

"I would much rather live in a world where some people care about clean energy and sustainability, others about colonizing space, others about mathematics, and others about art, etc." Right, if someone cares about something, they tend to talk about it. If they think it's important, they think it should be given priority over other things. But then this is exactly what you're replying to and exactly what you're disagreeing with. As if somehow by saying, "I think other things are more important than colonizing space" stops anybody doing anything. The tyranny of someone with an opinion different from yours, voicing it.

crsmithdev 10y ago

Your first paragraph there is a straw man -- that's not even remotely what was suggested, and you know it.

kafkaesq 10y ago

Yes let's stop all scientific and technological progress which isn't directly related to achieving utopia on earth, until a hypothetical point in the future that will never come. Slapstick arguments don't help. The whole point is that none of the proposals offered in the comment above yours are even remotely "utopian". They're all pretty much common sense (or should be by now), actually.