6 ms·

I think it's kinda cool to consider that rogue planets / brown dwarfs [0] could be candidates for extending human life beyond the solar system post-Sol. Assumin

I think it's kinda cool to consider that rogue planets / brown dwarfs [0] could be candidates for extending human life beyond the solar system post-Sol. Assuming we have enough fissile material (or master cold fusion) to perpetuate the civilization's energy requirements, we could explore the stars in darkness for eons. I'm not sure how likely they are as candidates for life to emerge spontaneously, it seems like there's a very high energy input requirement over billions of years (Sol -> Earth) to get anything close to human civilization... but it's cool to think that, perhaps, some future humans could settle a planet eternally cloaked in darkness. Adapt to the reality of that planet over generations... and be unable to acclimate to life near stars at all. Also, post-Andromeda collision, is this a necessary future for posthuman life? [1] Billions of cold worlds will be flung into the far reaches of the Universe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_co...

sgt 6y ago
Agree that would be very exciting. However, I think one has to consider maneuverability of the planet, effectively making into it a very large spaceship. It won't exactly turn on a dime, but it's crucial to alter its heading in some way, at the very least to avoid getting caught up in the gravitational orbit of another star. I wonder about the energy requirements for something like that, while still having enough to make it a safe place to live with a magnetosphere etc.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  It is generally quite difficult to get "caught" in orbit. You start out with enough energy to leave again. Big planets catch asteroids as moons only after millions of passes, generally involving interaction with another moon to steal some energy.
- Causality1 6y ago
  If you can generate enough energy to move a planet you'd have a far easier time just making a starship big enough for your whole species. The entire biosphere of earth occupies the volume equivalent of the skin on an apple. Just accelerating earth to solar escape velocity would take 3E24 joules.
kzrdude 6y ago
I think the Andromeda collision is likely to not even disturb our solar system. Just like asteroid fields in movies are way too dense, it's easy to overestimate what the collision means. It's two _galaxies_ that collide, but their parts don't. Their individual star systems may all pass around each other quite well, for the most part.
- edgyquant 6y ago
  That's a couple billion years from now, no? By that time human will either be a kingdom of species or extinct. Kind of weird to talk about it effecting mankind in anyway.
  - keithwhor 6y ago
    I'd consider all future progeny, "humankind." It matters not what my grandchildren look like; only that they have the opportunity to partake in the beauty that is the conscious experience of this Universe.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  It's not collisions that would be the problem, but the interacting gravity throwing previously stable orbits out of whack.
- hinkley 6y ago
  On the other hand, the Oort Cloud is likely to experience a shift in elliptical orbits, eventually causing a lot of damage in-system.
- antman 6y ago
  If I recall it is not a matter of physical collision but disruption due to the gravitational fields.
- nojokes 6y ago
  Maybe, but there is also this: As of 2006, simulations indicated that the Sun might be brought near the centre of the combined galaxy, potentially coming near one of the black holes before being ejected entirely out of the galaxy.[11] Alternatively, the Sun might approach one of the black holes a bit closer and be torn apart by its gravity. Parts of the former Sun would be pulled into the black hole. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_co...
grawprog 6y ago
>I think it's kinda cool to consider that rogue planets / brown dwarfs [0] could be candidates for extending human life beyond the solar system post-Sol. Assuming we have enough fissile material (or master cold fusion) to perpetuate the civilization's energy requirements, we could explore the stars in darkness for eons. Every time I read a comment like this I wonder if people have actually taken the time to consider what living off the Earth would actually be like. The quality of life for anyone living off the Earth would be abysmal. Think of the most barren, hostile, nearly uninhabitable places on Earth, they're still magnitudes higher in habitability than anywhere we're likely to find outside Earth. Then if somehow we actually manage to find a place with a climate similar to Earth, that may even have some life or organic material, there's the issue of compatibility. Look at the issues humans have just travelling from one side of the world to the other. Pathogens, the environment, even the food can cause problems, let alone a place with entirely alien life. Take something as simple as the prion that causes mad cow disease, it's a protein. What kinds of bacteria, virii, amoebas, fungi, parasites etc. Will we encounter? Would we even know we're infected until it'a too late? Maybe some kind of strange prion or virus that systemically and harmfully alters humans in a way that's undetectable until the whole population is infected? I mean this happens still here, with life on our own world. But, before all that is the endless darkness, entire generations living like nomads in the cold, black emptiness of space. Entire generations seeing nothing, living their lives only so their children's children's children can maybe someday see something. Overall though, the idea that we can just escape the Earth someday so it'll be fine just leads to shortsighted neglectful actions that destroy the planet. That colonial, we can just expand and keep growing indefinitely and just move to a new place, mindset stopped being reasonable the moment we spread across the world. Moving to a new planet is not the same as just hopping in a ship and sailing across the ocean. It's not a reasonable backup plan, it's not a reasonable solution. We have one home, Earth, we are all made from this place, someday we go back to it. No other place we ever may find will be our home the way the Earth is. The idea we should just use and abandon the Earth is just so incredibly backwards to the way we should be thinking.
- moralestapia 6y ago
  >The quality of life for anyone living off the Earth would be abysmal. I agree with the general sentiment of your post, however, this may not be necessarily true. If you have a shelter that provides adequate conditions for life, that's it. Sure, no more walks in the park, but still doable. Plenty of people have not left their homes at all in the past few months and they seem to be ok-ish.
the8472 6y ago
> (or master cold fusion) Why cold fusion specifically?
- keithwhor 6y ago
  Forgive me if I misrepresented fusion energy as a technology; my understanding was that the implication of "cold fusion" was simply "sustainable fusion." i.e. the all-in energy cost is less than the energy output at scale. I think that's most people's understanding of "fusion", generally, Matter -> Energy, but "cold" is the qualifier of, "we've created fusion reactions before. We just haven't sustained them in a net-positive fashion."
  - the8472 6y ago
    Cold fusion generally refers to a fringe research area, sometimes outright scientific fraud. Basing speculation on it moves you into space opera territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion What you're referring to is simply... practically useful fusion (beyond commercial breakeven). Which is obvious from the context and does not require an extra qualifier. The same way as fission isn't referred to "controlled chain reaction fission" in casual conversation.
rini17 6y ago
If we ever see a terrestrial planet moving through our solar system, some souls will surely want to colonise it even if there isn't any clear destination.

sgt 6y ago

Agree that would be very exciting. However, I think one has to consider maneuverability of the planet, effectively making into it a very large spaceship. It won't exactly turn on a dime, but it's crucial to alter its heading in some way, at the very least to avoid getting caught up in the gravitational orbit of another star. I wonder about the energy requirements for something like that, while still having enough to make it a safe place to live with a magnetosphere etc.

ncmncm 6y ago
It is generally quite difficult to get "caught" in orbit. You start out with enough energy to leave again. Big planets catch asteroids as moons only after millions of passes, generally involving interaction with another moon to steal some energy.
Causality1 6y ago
If you can generate enough energy to move a planet you'd have a far easier time just making a starship big enough for your whole species. The entire biosphere of earth occupies the volume equivalent of the skin on an apple. Just accelerating earth to solar escape velocity would take 3E24 joules.

kzrdude 6y ago

I think the Andromeda collision is likely to not even disturb our solar system. Just like asteroid fields in movies are way too dense, it's easy to overestimate what the collision means. It's two _galaxies_ that collide, but their parts don't. Their individual star systems may all pass around each other quite well, for the most part.

edgyquant 6y ago
That's a couple billion years from now, no? By that time human will either be a kingdom of species or extinct. Kind of weird to talk about it effecting mankind in anyway.
- keithwhor 6y ago
  I'd consider all future progeny, "humankind." It matters not what my grandchildren look like; only that they have the opportunity to partake in the beauty that is the conscious experience of this Universe.
oh_sigh 6y ago
It's not collisions that would be the problem, but the interacting gravity throwing previously stable orbits out of whack.
hinkley 6y ago
On the other hand, the Oort Cloud is likely to experience a shift in elliptical orbits, eventually causing a lot of damage in-system.
antman 6y ago
If I recall it is not a matter of physical collision but disruption due to the gravitational fields.
nojokes 6y ago
Maybe, but there is also this: As of 2006, simulations indicated that the Sun might be brought near the centre of the combined galaxy, potentially coming near one of the black holes before being ejected entirely out of the galaxy.[11] Alternatively, the Sun might approach one of the black holes a bit closer and be torn apart by its gravity. Parts of the former Sun would be pulled into the black hole. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_co...

grawprog 6y ago

>I think it's kinda cool to consider that rogue planets / brown dwarfs [0] could be candidates for extending human life beyond the solar system post-Sol. Assuming we have enough fissile material (or master cold fusion) to perpetuate the civilization's energy requirements, we could explore the stars in darkness for eons. Every time I read a comment like this I wonder if people have actually taken the time to consider what living off the Earth would actually be like. The quality of life for anyone living off the Earth would be abysmal. Think of the most barren, hostile, nearly uninhabitable places on Earth, they're still magnitudes higher in habitability than anywhere we're likely to find outside Earth. Then if somehow we actually manage to find a place with a climate similar to Earth, that may even have some life or organic material, there's the issue of compatibility. Look at the issues humans have just travelling from one side of the world to the other. Pathogens, the environment, even the food can cause problems, let alone a place with entirely alien life. Take something as simple as the prion that causes mad cow disease, it's a protein. What kinds of bacteria, virii, amoebas, fungi, parasites etc. Will we encounter? Would we even know we're infected until it'a too late? Maybe some kind of strange prion or virus that systemically and harmfully alters humans in a way that's undetectable until the whole population is infected? I mean this happens still here, with life on our own world. But, before all that is the endless darkness, entire generations living like nomads in the cold, black emptiness of space. Entire generations seeing nothing, living their lives only so their children's children's children can maybe someday see something. Overall though, the idea that we can just escape the Earth someday so it'll be fine just leads to shortsighted neglectful actions that destroy the planet. That colonial, we can just expand and keep growing indefinitely and just move to a new place, mindset stopped being reasonable the moment we spread across the world. Moving to a new planet is not the same as just hopping in a ship and sailing across the ocean. It's not a reasonable backup plan, it's not a reasonable solution. We have one home, Earth, we are all made from this place, someday we go back to it. No other place we ever may find will be our home the way the Earth is. The idea we should just use and abandon the Earth is just so incredibly backwards to the way we should be thinking.

moralestapia 6y ago
>The quality of life for anyone living off the Earth would be abysmal. I agree with the general sentiment of your post, however, this may not be necessarily true. If you have a shelter that provides adequate conditions for life, that's it. Sure, no more walks in the park, but still doable. Plenty of people have not left their homes at all in the past few months and they seem to be ok-ish.

the8472 6y ago

> (or master cold fusion) Why cold fusion specifically?

keithwhor 6y ago
Forgive me if I misrepresented fusion energy as a technology; my understanding was that the implication of "cold fusion" was simply "sustainable fusion." i.e. the all-in energy cost is less than the energy output at scale. I think that's most people's understanding of "fusion", generally, Matter -> Energy, but "cold" is the qualifier of, "we've created fusion reactions before. We just haven't sustained them in a net-positive fashion."
- the8472 6y ago
  Cold fusion generally refers to a fringe research area, sometimes outright scientific fraud. Basing speculation on it moves you into space opera territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion What you're referring to is simply... practically useful fusion (beyond commercial breakeven). Which is obvious from the context and does not require an extra qualifier. The same way as fission isn't referred to "controlled chain reaction fission" in casual conversation.

rini17 6y ago

If we ever see a terrestrial planet moving through our solar system, some souls will surely want to colonise it even if there isn't any clear destination.