7 ms·

> Issac Arthur speculates that Titan may become a center of cryogenic industry and computing in the late 21st century. More like the late 31st century

by ythn 8y ago

jstanley 8y ago
At the start of the 20th century heavier-than-air flight wasn't possible. By the end of the 20th century we'd put people on the moon, and brought them back alive, multiple times. Inter-continental flight became so routine that it's not even notable. I wouldn't underestimate the rate of technological progress.
- spraak 8y ago
  We don't know if it grows logarithmicly or exponentially, though
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    If we go by wealth generated and population supported, it would appear to go exponentially.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  > By the end of the 20th century we'd put people on the moon, and brought them back alive multiple time ... I wouldn't underestimate the rate of technological progress. That was by 1972 (1). 46 years ago. Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Not everything can be usefully measured with one easy metric, as in Moore's Law. In the case of something like colonization, the proper metrics are economic, not technological benchmarks. You could just as well cherry pick from The Age of Discovery, say from 1260 to 1360 and make the same statement: "X years ago. Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery#Medieval_travel_(1241%E2%80%931438) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery#Medieval_trav... However, if you look at metrics of economic activity across spans 200, 400, and 600 years after that, you get a far different picture. So basically, your point is intellectually bankrupt. It's based on too little data and uses an entirely inadequate metric.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
      I was with you until "your point is intellectually bankrupt" which is unnecessarily insulting and also wrong. I would welcome a return to deep space, but there has been no progress towards it recently. The dates are correct. It might be true that this is not strong enough evidence against either, and that it still remains an open question if recent technological advances on Earth will translate into a return to space, but that's as far as it goes. There's nothing inevitable about it, it depends on what people want.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        I was with you until "your point is intellectually bankrupt" which is unnecessarily insulting This is part of being an intellectual: I can insult your point all day. That's perfectly fine. Taking that personally -- not good form. there has been no progress towards it recently. The dates are correct. If you were an alien observing earth from orbit, you could have made the same observation ("no progress towards it recently") about ocean going exploration at multiple points, prior to it changing history irrevocably and then exploding in economic and political importance. There's nothing inevitable about it, it depends on what people want. In that case, it's likely to happen.
        hutzlibu 8y ago
        "This is part of being an intellectual: I can insult your point all day. That's perfectly fine. Taking that personally -- not good form." Not at all. You can criticize any point all day and if someone takes that personal it is indeed not a good form. But "insulting" a point gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) of insulting the person behind it, as you cannot insult a point, only a person. Quite the opposite of "beeing an intellectual".
        stcredzero 8y ago
        But "insulting" a point gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) of insulting the person behind it, as you cannot insult a point, only a person. Why in the world is saying that a point is intellectually bankrupt "insulting" a point versus criticizing it? The point is made that, "This numerical circumstance doesn't indicate exponential growth." However, an analogous numerical circumstance happened at a number of points, and was followed by exponential growth. Clearly, there is something else needed for justification. gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) So factually, no one has done anything but criticize a point, and your reaction is all about your feels, by your own admission. If you want to defend the intellectual merits of the point, then actually defend the intellectual merits of the point. This tactic of acting offended, then offering nothing more is wearing thin. I should hope that going forward from 2018, people will generally recognize that kind of activity for what it is.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Exactly. Shortly there could well be no living people who've been to the moon. [1] We went to the moon because we could. A few more people may soon go because they can. But moon bases have been 30 years away something like 70 years. On a purely personal basis, I'd love to see it happen. But realistically, we barely have people in low earth orbit. It's reasonable to argue that we'll get there. But the burden of proof is on the people arguing it, and the "progress is inevitable" handwave is definitely doesn't cut it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_have_walked_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_have_walke...
    - lagadu 8y ago
      The way I see it is that while it's definitely extremely interesting and cool, the incentives/benefits of having a presence on the moon are limited at best. Sure we have the means but we don't have an economically strong answer to "why should we do it"; the most of we have is "it might present some good research opportunities". Until some breakthrough comes around that needs it or until the costs of running operations on Earth become massive we're stuck here.
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    There were large economic incentives in developing air travel and there is almost no economic incentive in manned space travel. Unless we have a reason to go to the Moon, nobody will pay the bill. Having said that, SpaceX is reducing the cost of putting people on the Moon to values never before imagined possible. If the bill is much lower, someone may consider to pay it and a whole lot of interesting activities become economically viable (even for governments who want to study the Moon). Sadly, for data processing needs, the Moon doesn't look like a great heatsink.
    - rainbowmverse 8y ago
      Nobody thought Florida was inhabitable until it was. All it takes is one scientific or engineering breakthrough that stands on the right shoulders and it makes sense to build bases off Earth. The first settlement will probably be a retirement community for millionaires fleeing the chaos on Earth. Billionaires will build and run it.
      - GW150914 8y ago
        Good idea, we can send them on the B Ark.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        It's millennials and younger who most closely fit those roles.
        GW150914 8y ago
        No, that’s how we all die from a disease contracted from an unexpectedly dirty telephone.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        I know of no millennials who have telephone sanitation skills.
  - beefield 8y ago
    > Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate. Well, one could argue that since then a significant bunch of our top talents have been allocated to generating financial innovations like motgage backed securities and figuring our how to get more people clicking on ads. So if this talent was reallocated to space exploration (which again someone might argue that can't be less stupid way to allocate these resources than click industry) the speed of technological progtess might change dramatically. Just makes one wonder if there is something fishy how the free market supposedly is the most efficient allocator of resources...
    - mmirate 8y ago
      Okay, but whose definition of "efficient" are we using here? Space sounds exciting, sure, but Earth still has enough resources that there aren't any goods that can be produced in space that can't be produced more cheaply on Earth.
      - beefield 8y ago
        > Okay, but whose definition of "efficient" are we using here? That's the problem. I have no better definition. I just have a feeling that the current economics 101 doctrine of free markets just might not be the right answer to all resource allocation problems. (I am vague on purpose who defines what is right and what is wrong. I have no answer to that, either. Just my personal opinion.)
    - guhidalg 8y ago
      As long as people believe that efficiency == profits, I doubt the view will change.
  - progval 8y ago
    > Since then, no progress on this front. But we're sending probes on Mars now; and Mars is a lot more interesting than the Moon.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  I wouldn't underestimate the uninterestingness of space either. People could probably place a datacenter at Titan today. But nobody will, and for good reasons. I don't have any narrative for why people will colonize space, but it will probably be done for sending people there, because exporting stuff for Earth isn't really reasonable.
hourislate 8y ago
If we had Nuclear Fusion and Androids, would it still take another 1000 years to seed the Solar System? I don't know, just asking...
- jacobush 8y ago
  You'll probably have to ask the Androids.
stcredzero 8y ago
If it took only 250 years to go from outposts to the late 20th century US, I very much doubt it will take us 1000 years to a solar system-wide civilization as portrayed in The Expanse. If you subscribe to the exponential nature of civilization changes, then it becomes doubtful Homo sapiens will be around in 100 years!
- elorant 8y ago
  On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. In the early fits and starts of the exploration of Earth, there were multiple spans of 50 years where progress was seemingly abandoned and nothing happened. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor. Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play. Unless you know a lot that no one serious claims to know, then this is a statement of what you hope for and maybe personally believe, but for which no evidence exists. The sheer bulk of unknown unknowns in environmental tech, not to mention other assumptions you’ve been making about industry in space and more, are too numerous and prevalent to allow for confident statements either way. You may be right that humanity’s destiny is in the far reaches of the solar system, but it could go many other ways. Maybe we’ll die in the dirt, or maybe we’ll thrive in completely different ways. For all that you know, rather than personally wish to believe, our future may more closely resemble something like a Dyson Swarm constructed by drones rather than hurling ourselves into the dim and cold reaches of space. Maybe we’ll figure out a mutually amicable way to control population rates and make the Earth a Paradise, and leave space for robots. Who knows? Not me, not you. All of which is to say, please stop passing off something that is less than a hunch as an argument. The core of science is skepticism and a demand for evidence, while the core of pop science is an inverse relationship between knowledge and enthusiasm. Claiming to know what will happen in 50 years is a joke, in 100 years delusion, and in 1000 years religion. There are so many branches and twists and turns, both positive and negative and just plain unforeseen that futurism is crap.

> Issac Arthur speculates that Titan may become a center of cryogenic industry and computing in the late 21st century. More like the late 31st century

by ythn 8y ago

> Issac Arthur speculates that Titan may become a center of cryogenic industry and computing in the late 21st century. More like the late 31st century

jstanley 8y ago

At the start of the 20th century heavier-than-air flight wasn't possible. By the end of the 20th century we'd put people on the moon, and brought them back alive, multiple times. Inter-continental flight became so routine that it's not even notable. I wouldn't underestimate the rate of technological progress.

spraak 8y ago
We don't know if it grows logarithmicly or exponentially, though
- stcredzero 8y ago
  If we go by wealth generated and population supported, it would appear to go exponentially.
SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
> By the end of the 20th century we'd put people on the moon, and brought them back alive multiple time ... I wouldn't underestimate the rate of technological progress. That was by 1972 (1). 46 years ago. Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Not everything can be usefully measured with one easy metric, as in Moore's Law. In the case of something like colonization, the proper metrics are economic, not technological benchmarks. You could just as well cherry pick from The Age of Discovery, say from 1260 to 1360 and make the same statement: "X years ago. Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery#Medieval_travel_(1241%E2%80%931438) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery#Medieval_trav... However, if you look at metrics of economic activity across spans 200, 400, and 600 years after that, you get a far different picture. So basically, your point is intellectually bankrupt. It's based on too little data and uses an entirely inadequate metric.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
    I was with you until "your point is intellectually bankrupt" which is unnecessarily insulting and also wrong. I would welcome a return to deep space, but there has been no progress towards it recently. The dates are correct. It might be true that this is not strong enough evidence against either, and that it still remains an open question if recent technological advances on Earth will translate into a return to space, but that's as far as it goes. There's nothing inevitable about it, it depends on what people want.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I was with you until "your point is intellectually bankrupt" which is unnecessarily insulting This is part of being an intellectual: I can insult your point all day. That's perfectly fine. Taking that personally -- not good form. there has been no progress towards it recently. The dates are correct. If you were an alien observing earth from orbit, you could have made the same observation ("no progress towards it recently") about ocean going exploration at multiple points, prior to it changing history irrevocably and then exploding in economic and political importance. There's nothing inevitable about it, it depends on what people want. In that case, it's likely to happen.
      - hutzlibu 8y ago
        "This is part of being an intellectual: I can insult your point all day. That's perfectly fine. Taking that personally -- not good form." Not at all. You can criticize any point all day and if someone takes that personal it is indeed not a good form. But "insulting" a point gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) of insulting the person behind it, as you cannot insult a point, only a person. Quite the opposite of "beeing an intellectual".
        stcredzero 8y ago
        But "insulting" a point gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) of insulting the person behind it, as you cannot insult a point, only a person. Why in the world is saying that a point is intellectually bankrupt "insulting" a point versus criticizing it? The point is made that, "This numerical circumstance doesn't indicate exponential growth." However, an analogous numerical circumstance happened at a number of points, and was followed by exponential growth. Clearly, there is something else needed for justification. gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) So factually, no one has done anything but criticize a point, and your reaction is all about your feels, by your own admission. If you want to defend the intellectual merits of the point, then actually defend the intellectual merits of the point. This tactic of acting offended, then offering nothing more is wearing thin. I should hope that going forward from 2018, people will generally recognize that kind of activity for what it is.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Exactly. Shortly there could well be no living people who've been to the moon. [1] We went to the moon because we could. A few more people may soon go because they can. But moon bases have been 30 years away something like 70 years. On a purely personal basis, I'd love to see it happen. But realistically, we barely have people in low earth orbit. It's reasonable to argue that we'll get there. But the burden of proof is on the people arguing it, and the "progress is inevitable" handwave is definitely doesn't cut it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_have_walked_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_have_walke...
  - lagadu 8y ago
    The way I see it is that while it's definitely extremely interesting and cool, the incentives/benefits of having a presence on the moon are limited at best. Sure we have the means but we don't have an economically strong answer to "why should we do it"; the most of we have is "it might present some good research opportunities". Until some breakthrough comes around that needs it or until the costs of running operations on Earth become massive we're stuck here.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  There were large economic incentives in developing air travel and there is almost no economic incentive in manned space travel. Unless we have a reason to go to the Moon, nobody will pay the bill. Having said that, SpaceX is reducing the cost of putting people on the Moon to values never before imagined possible. If the bill is much lower, someone may consider to pay it and a whole lot of interesting activities become economically viable (even for governments who want to study the Moon). Sadly, for data processing needs, the Moon doesn't look like a great heatsink.
  - rainbowmverse 8y ago
    Nobody thought Florida was inhabitable until it was. All it takes is one scientific or engineering breakthrough that stands on the right shoulders and it makes sense to build bases off Earth. The first settlement will probably be a retirement community for millionaires fleeing the chaos on Earth. Billionaires will build and run it.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Good idea, we can send them on the B Ark.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        It's millennials and younger who most closely fit those roles.
        GW150914 8y ago
        No, that’s how we all die from a disease contracted from an unexpectedly dirty telephone.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        I know of no millennials who have telephone sanitation skills.
- beefield 8y ago
  > Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate. Well, one could argue that since then a significant bunch of our top talents have been allocated to generating financial innovations like motgage backed securities and figuring our how to get more people clicking on ads. So if this talent was reallocated to space exploration (which again someone might argue that can't be less stupid way to allocate these resources than click industry) the speed of technological progtess might change dramatically. Just makes one wonder if there is something fishy how the free market supposedly is the most efficient allocator of resources...
  - mmirate 8y ago
    Okay, but whose definition of "efficient" are we using here? Space sounds exciting, sure, but Earth still has enough resources that there aren't any goods that can be produced in space that can't be produced more cheaply on Earth.
    - beefield 8y ago
      > Okay, but whose definition of "efficient" are we using here? That's the problem. I have no better definition. I just have a feeling that the current economics 101 doctrine of free markets just might not be the right answer to all resource allocation problems. (I am vague on purpose who defines what is right and what is wrong. I have no answer to that, either. Just my personal opinion.)
  - guhidalg 8y ago
    As long as people believe that efficiency == profits, I doubt the view will change.
- progval 8y ago
  > Since then, no progress on this front. But we're sending probes on Mars now; and Mars is a lot more interesting than the Moon.
marcosdumay 8y ago
I wouldn't underestimate the uninterestingness of space either. People could probably place a datacenter at Titan today. But nobody will, and for good reasons. I don't have any narrative for why people will colonize space, but it will probably be done for sending people there, because exporting stuff for Earth isn't really reasonable.

hourislate 8y ago

If we had Nuclear Fusion and Androids, would it still take another 1000 years to seed the Solar System? I don't know, just asking...

jacobush 8y ago
You'll probably have to ask the Androids.

stcredzero 8y ago

If it took only 250 years to go from outposts to the late 20th century US, I very much doubt it will take us 1000 years to a solar system-wide civilization as portrayed in The Expanse. If you subscribe to the exponential nature of civilization changes, then it becomes doubtful Homo sapiens will be around in 100 years!

elorant 8y ago
On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. In the early fits and starts of the exploration of Earth, there were multiple spans of 50 years where progress was seemingly abandoned and nothing happened. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor. Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play. Unless you know a lot that no one serious claims to know, then this is a statement of what you hope for and maybe personally believe, but for which no evidence exists. The sheer bulk of unknown unknowns in environmental tech, not to mention other assumptions you’ve been making about industry in space and more, are too numerous and prevalent to allow for confident statements either way. You may be right that humanity’s destiny is in the far reaches of the solar system, but it could go many other ways. Maybe we’ll die in the dirt, or maybe we’ll thrive in completely different ways. For all that you know, rather than personally wish to believe, our future may more closely resemble something like a Dyson Swarm constructed by drones rather than hurling ourselves into the dim and cold reaches of space. Maybe we’ll figure out a mutually amicable way to control population rates and make the Earth a Paradise, and leave space for robots. Who knows? Not me, not you. All of which is to say, please stop passing off something that is less than a hunch as an argument. The core of science is skepticism and a demand for evidence, while the core of pop science is an inverse relationship between knowledge and enthusiasm. Claiming to know what will happen in 50 years is a joke, in 100 years delusion, and in 1000 years religion. There are so many branches and twists and turns, both positive and negative and just plain unforeseen that futurism is crap.