5 ms·

Because a fresh start allows us to try out different ways of running societies and escape established structures. It's so hard to change things in established s

Because a fresh start allows us to try out different ways of running societies and escape established structures. It's so hard to change things in established systems. I think there's pretty good historical evidence of this. The establishment of the USA is an example. It can be a good way to, over time, enact change within the established societies. A similar argument can be made that the unique technological challenges involved will spur innovation that will again help deal with problems in the established societies.

verelo 8y ago
Eh I’m not convinced. “This rewrite will be different, we will make all the right choices!”. Next conversation “it’s just wrong in different ways”. Like you’re right, the inertia of established countries probably holds us back a lot, but I’m unsure that we have evolved sufficiently to do better. It’s possible to imagine, but it doesn’t seem like an obvious outcome just yet.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  Despite what we hear in the media, the world has gotten so much better in many ways in the last couple of hundred years. That's not to say there aren't big issues, or no things that have gotten worse, but there's a clear and very strong overall trend. See for example The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity, by Steven Pinker https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0141034645 https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/... Or the first chapter of Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World, by Rutger Bregman https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World/dp/0316471917/ https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World/dp/...
  - worldsayshi 8y ago
    The world has gotten much much better in some ways (health, longevity, child-mortality, education, economy, violence). But it has also gotten much much worse in others (environmental destruction, military capability). We can't just focus on one aspect and neglect the other. One doesn't take away the magnitude of the other. The magnitudes of the bad as well as the good are both enormous.
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      > We can't just focus on one aspect and neglect the other Who is doing that? I said "That's not to say there aren't big issues, or no things that have gotten worse, but there's a clear and very strong overall trend." When you look at the magnitudes it's clear that overall the direction is overwhelmingly in the positive direction. You say it has "gotten much much worse in others (environmental destruction, military capability)". I agree in the case of environmental issues. But if you're talking about wars and violence (and in what other sense could military capabilities be bad?) things have gotten much better not worse.
      - worldsayshi 8y ago
        > When you look at the magnitudes it's clear that overall the direction is overwhelmingly in the positive direction. No, we are quickly and increasingly progressing towards depleting all our means for life on Earth. And our current response to that is massively inadequate. This nullifies all other progress. > and in what other sense could military capabilities be bad With more military power it becomes easier to oppress and harder to revolt against bad politics. Democracy relies in some part in the potential of people to revolt.
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        > No, we are quickly and increasingly progressing towards depleting all our means for life on Earth. And our current response to that is massively inadequate. This nullifies all other progress. All our means for life? That's hyperbole. It's a serious problem, but it doesn't allow you to pretend that all that progress hasn't happened and hasn't made a difference to people's lives. > With more military power it becomes easier to oppress and harder to revolt against bad politics. Democracy relies in some part in the potential of people to revolt. It's unclear what you're referring to. Are you saying there has actually been greater oppression because of greater military power? That this has increased over time?
rohit2412 8y ago
Wouldn't a self sustainable pod in Antarctic or the bottom of the ocean be the starting point? And you'd start a settlement on Mars just because you don't like some of the social systems? just buy yourself an island from a govt somewhere, that would be cheaper and far more manageable.
- jacoblambda 8y ago
  The difference I think comes down to a few things. - One is that it is a hell of a lot harder to cheat on Mars than it is in the remotes of Earth. Once you establish the outpost, its not like you can just call in a maintenance team and have assistance at your door within a few days. This forces teams to find ways to make it work. This also makes it much harder for changes in leadership to cancel the mission. - The other is that developing tech for extraordinarily hostile remote environments tends to produce more potent solutions because the cost of not being sustainable is so much greater.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    To echo the previous post, why Mars? Why not the moon? Why not the Lagrange points? Why not the upper atmosphere of Venus? I'm not saying no to Mars, but there's plenty of other frontiers we should be looking into, some of which are better candidates in terms of proximity or more similar gravity.
    - ElBarto 8y ago
      Settling on the Moon first would certainly be the more logical and cost effective starting point. Once all the techs have matured on the Moon then Mars is just a longer trip.
      - jamesrcole 8y ago
        Robert Zubrin argues that Mars is a much better target than the Moon. A summary of the argument is in the second paragraph of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars#Risks_confronted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars#Risks_confro... The full details here: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X https://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/14516...
jacobwilliamroy 8y ago
I live in the central pacific. Out here, ecological collapse is real and happening now. >Massive coral die off from ocean acidification. >Rising sea levels salinating farm lands. >Rising sea levels causing saltwater contamination of aquifers. >Falling fish populations due to above factors as well as over fishing and pollution And then we have the space-people telling us that Terraformed Mars is achievable/desirable/affordable when I'm not even sure my family will be able to grow food on our land in 40 years.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  I'm sorry to hear you're going through that. However, the fact that there are pressing problems here and now does not invalidate the argument I gave.
- scotty79 8y ago
  > ... when I'm not even sure my family will be able to grow food on our land in 40 years. I'm sorry. You won't. It won't get better. Please move before everyone starts moving.
- Mankrik 8y ago
  Perhaps taking your frustration out on the people who don't even believe climate change is real, and not the people looking to move humanity towards the stars would be more productive at getting people to care about these issues. Not the ones who have dedicated their careers to a certain scientific pursuit.

verelo 8y ago

Eh I’m not convinced. “This rewrite will be different, we will make all the right choices!”. Next conversation “it’s just wrong in different ways”. Like you’re right, the inertia of established countries probably holds us back a lot, but I’m unsure that we have evolved sufficiently to do better. It’s possible to imagine, but it doesn’t seem like an obvious outcome just yet.

jamesrcole 8y ago
Despite what we hear in the media, the world has gotten so much better in many ways in the last couple of hundred years. That's not to say there aren't big issues, or no things that have gotten worse, but there's a clear and very strong overall trend. See for example The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity, by Steven Pinker https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0141034645 https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/... Or the first chapter of Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World, by Rutger Bregman https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World/dp/0316471917/ https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World/dp/...
- worldsayshi 8y ago
  The world has gotten much much better in some ways (health, longevity, child-mortality, education, economy, violence). But it has also gotten much much worse in others (environmental destruction, military capability). We can't just focus on one aspect and neglect the other. One doesn't take away the magnitude of the other. The magnitudes of the bad as well as the good are both enormous.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    > We can't just focus on one aspect and neglect the other Who is doing that? I said "That's not to say there aren't big issues, or no things that have gotten worse, but there's a clear and very strong overall trend." When you look at the magnitudes it's clear that overall the direction is overwhelmingly in the positive direction. You say it has "gotten much much worse in others (environmental destruction, military capability)". I agree in the case of environmental issues. But if you're talking about wars and violence (and in what other sense could military capabilities be bad?) things have gotten much better not worse.
    - worldsayshi 8y ago
      > When you look at the magnitudes it's clear that overall the direction is overwhelmingly in the positive direction. No, we are quickly and increasingly progressing towards depleting all our means for life on Earth. And our current response to that is massively inadequate. This nullifies all other progress. > and in what other sense could military capabilities be bad With more military power it becomes easier to oppress and harder to revolt against bad politics. Democracy relies in some part in the potential of people to revolt.
      - jamesrcole 8y ago
        > No, we are quickly and increasingly progressing towards depleting all our means for life on Earth. And our current response to that is massively inadequate. This nullifies all other progress. All our means for life? That's hyperbole. It's a serious problem, but it doesn't allow you to pretend that all that progress hasn't happened and hasn't made a difference to people's lives. > With more military power it becomes easier to oppress and harder to revolt against bad politics. Democracy relies in some part in the potential of people to revolt. It's unclear what you're referring to. Are you saying there has actually been greater oppression because of greater military power? That this has increased over time?

rohit2412 8y ago

Wouldn't a self sustainable pod in Antarctic or the bottom of the ocean be the starting point? And you'd start a settlement on Mars just because you don't like some of the social systems? just buy yourself an island from a govt somewhere, that would be cheaper and far more manageable.

jacoblambda 8y ago
The difference I think comes down to a few things. - One is that it is a hell of a lot harder to cheat on Mars than it is in the remotes of Earth. Once you establish the outpost, its not like you can just call in a maintenance team and have assistance at your door within a few days. This forces teams to find ways to make it work. This also makes it much harder for changes in leadership to cancel the mission. - The other is that developing tech for extraordinarily hostile remote environments tends to produce more potent solutions because the cost of not being sustainable is so much greater.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  To echo the previous post, why Mars? Why not the moon? Why not the Lagrange points? Why not the upper atmosphere of Venus? I'm not saying no to Mars, but there's plenty of other frontiers we should be looking into, some of which are better candidates in terms of proximity or more similar gravity.
  - ElBarto 8y ago
    Settling on the Moon first would certainly be the more logical and cost effective starting point. Once all the techs have matured on the Moon then Mars is just a longer trip.
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      Robert Zubrin argues that Mars is a much better target than the Moon. A summary of the argument is in the second paragraph of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars#Risks_confronted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars#Risks_confro... The full details here: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X https://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/14516...

jacobwilliamroy 8y ago

I live in the central pacific. Out here, ecological collapse is real and happening now. >Massive coral die off from ocean acidification. >Rising sea levels salinating farm lands. >Rising sea levels causing saltwater contamination of aquifers. >Falling fish populations due to above factors as well as over fishing and pollution And then we have the space-people telling us that Terraformed Mars is achievable/desirable/affordable when I'm not even sure my family will be able to grow food on our land in 40 years.

jamesrcole 8y ago
I'm sorry to hear you're going through that. However, the fact that there are pressing problems here and now does not invalidate the argument I gave.
scotty79 8y ago
> ... when I'm not even sure my family will be able to grow food on our land in 40 years. I'm sorry. You won't. It won't get better. Please move before everyone starts moving.
Mankrik 8y ago
Perhaps taking your frustration out on the people who don't even believe climate change is real, and not the people looking to move humanity towards the stars would be more productive at getting people to care about these issues. Not the ones who have dedicated their careers to a certain scientific pursuit.