5 ms·

Frankly what competitive advantages does Venus allow for of these sorts of floating cities in contrast to on Mars or just Earth?

pmiller2 6y ago
I think the fact that we may only have 30-50 years' worth of human civilization left on Earth is a competitive advantage for both other planets.
- EarthLaunch 6y ago
  Is this in reference to a new apocalypse religion?
  - 0-_-0 6y ago
    Yes
- sthnblllII 6y ago
  Hearing statements like this make a lot of people deny Climate Change is happening at all.
- neckardt 6y ago
  Why do we only have 30-50 years of civilization left on Earth? I haven't heard of anything that would make the planet uninhabitable on such a short timescale.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    This isn't crazy talk: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-ci... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Steffen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Steffen From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378008000435 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09593... : > This paper focuses on a comparison of recently collated historical data for 1970–2000 with scenarios presented in the Limits to Growth. The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compare favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the “standard run” scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st century. The data do not compare well with other scenarios involving comprehensive use of technology or stabilizing behaviour and policies. The results indicate the particular importance of understanding and controlling global pollution. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/30/environment-2050-flooded-cities-forced-migration-amazon-turning-savannah https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/30/environm...
    - hobs 6y ago
      And even if you agree with that Venus and Mars are like literal hellscapes in comparison to what the earth would be like in that situation.
    - sjtindell 6y ago
      It’s not crazy talk, but it’s understandably hard to believe or follow. You being downvoted so hard is disheartening. Still, as we speak, civilization is undergoing a massive shift towards renewable energy and sustainable policies. Our capitalist world order is so stable some people (who were admittedly wrong) called it “the end of history”. Topics like cutting working hours are more common I think. And the birth rate is halving itself. Just some thoughts. The strong, dire language of these articles makes it sound like a done deal anyway.
- bruce511 6y ago
  I assume you are referring to climate change here. (maybe you have set omething else in mind?) While climate change is super-important, and we absolutely need to do whatever we can to negate it, it is not a threat to global civilization. Even if the effects of climate change are orders of magnitude worse than we expect, the planet most suitable for human life will remain Earth. Because, um, we can breathe the air, drink the water and the temperature is within the ranges we easily tolerate. (not to even get into issues of magnetic fields etc) Will the earth of the future support 7 billion people? Probably yes, possibly no, but whatever number it does support will forever dwarf the people living in venus or mars. Will our "civilisation" look different 50 years from now? Undoubtedly yes. But it's radically changed in the last 50,100 and 150. Certainly those times counted as civilised did they not? There will be civilisations on earth for a long long time (baring nuclear anialation) - our adaptability (think Sahara /Siberia) is, if anything, a little too aggressive.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Climate change is not a threat to local civilization, but is a very definite threat to global civilization. 30-50 years may be radically over-optimistic. Worldwide, governments are responding to the crisis in almost perfectly maladaptive ways. As hundreds of millions of refugees are barely beginning take flight, fascist governments are arising to keep them out of temperate zones, tending ultimately toward global war. Certainly, pockets will survive, but global civilization, as such, is much less secure.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I think the fact that we may only have 30-50 years' worth of human civilization left on Earth is a competitive advantage for both other planets. We're centuries away from self-sustaining colonies on either Venus or Mars, so if your timeline was right, that's be a reason not to bother with either.
akira2501 6y ago
Venus is closer to the sun, so, solar panels generate more W/mm^2 there. Maximum solar irradiance at 1AU is 1351 W/m^2. Maximum solar irradiance at 0.723AU is 2584 W/m^2.
CameronNemo 6y ago
They mentioned two advantages over Mars in the article: * gravity (and bone density) * radiation Over Earth? Absolutely no advantage, other than maybe it is easier to get approval to build a giant blimp. But I feel like if you wanted to build a floating city in international waters nobody would get in your way. They might rob you, though.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Plus matching air pressure and ambient temperature, and more insolation. But, yes, building in the middle of Antarctica would be overwhelmingly easier, safer, and cheaper. Nobody does, though.
tzs 6y ago
PBS Space Time did a short (7 minute) episode called "Should We Colonize Venus Instead of Mars?" [1] that gives several advantages Venus has as a colonization target compared to Mars (and covers some of the difficulties). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag
dwaltrip 6y ago
The advantage of Mars and Venus compared to Earth is that they are not Earth. Humans explore. It’s what we do. It seems very likely the Earth will also benefit. The technology developed to sustain humans in other places in the solar system possible will be impactful back home.

pmiller2 6y ago

I think the fact that we may only have 30-50 years' worth of human civilization left on Earth is a competitive advantage for both other planets.

EarthLaunch 6y ago
Is this in reference to a new apocalypse religion?
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  Yes
sthnblllII 6y ago
Hearing statements like this make a lot of people deny Climate Change is happening at all.
neckardt 6y ago
Why do we only have 30-50 years of civilization left on Earth? I haven't heard of anything that would make the planet uninhabitable on such a short timescale.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  This isn't crazy talk: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-ci... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Steffen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Steffen From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378008000435 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09593... : > This paper focuses on a comparison of recently collated historical data for 1970–2000 with scenarios presented in the Limits to Growth. The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compare favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the “standard run” scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st century. The data do not compare well with other scenarios involving comprehensive use of technology or stabilizing behaviour and policies. The results indicate the particular importance of understanding and controlling global pollution. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/30/environment-2050-flooded-cities-forced-migration-amazon-turning-savannah https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/30/environm...
  - hobs 6y ago
    And even if you agree with that Venus and Mars are like literal hellscapes in comparison to what the earth would be like in that situation.
  - sjtindell 6y ago
    It’s not crazy talk, but it’s understandably hard to believe or follow. You being downvoted so hard is disheartening. Still, as we speak, civilization is undergoing a massive shift towards renewable energy and sustainable policies. Our capitalist world order is so stable some people (who were admittedly wrong) called it “the end of history”. Topics like cutting working hours are more common I think. And the birth rate is halving itself. Just some thoughts. The strong, dire language of these articles makes it sound like a done deal anyway.
bruce511 6y ago
I assume you are referring to climate change here. (maybe you have set omething else in mind?) While climate change is super-important, and we absolutely need to do whatever we can to negate it, it is not a threat to global civilization. Even if the effects of climate change are orders of magnitude worse than we expect, the planet most suitable for human life will remain Earth. Because, um, we can breathe the air, drink the water and the temperature is within the ranges we easily tolerate. (not to even get into issues of magnetic fields etc) Will the earth of the future support 7 billion people? Probably yes, possibly no, but whatever number it does support will forever dwarf the people living in venus or mars. Will our "civilisation" look different 50 years from now? Undoubtedly yes. But it's radically changed in the last 50,100 and 150. Certainly those times counted as civilised did they not? There will be civilisations on earth for a long long time (baring nuclear anialation) - our adaptability (think Sahara /Siberia) is, if anything, a little too aggressive.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Climate change is not a threat to local civilization, but is a very definite threat to global civilization. 30-50 years may be radically over-optimistic. Worldwide, governments are responding to the crisis in almost perfectly maladaptive ways. As hundreds of millions of refugees are barely beginning take flight, fascist governments are arising to keep them out of temperate zones, tending ultimately toward global war. Certainly, pockets will survive, but global civilization, as such, is much less secure.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I think the fact that we may only have 30-50 years' worth of human civilization left on Earth is a competitive advantage for both other planets. We're centuries away from self-sustaining colonies on either Venus or Mars, so if your timeline was right, that's be a reason not to bother with either.

akira2501 6y ago

Venus is closer to the sun, so, solar panels generate more W/mm^2 there. Maximum solar irradiance at 1AU is 1351 W/m^2. Maximum solar irradiance at 0.723AU is 2584 W/m^2.

CameronNemo 6y ago

They mentioned two advantages over Mars in the article: * gravity (and bone density) * radiation Over Earth? Absolutely no advantage, other than maybe it is easier to get approval to build a giant blimp. But I feel like if you wanted to build a floating city in international waters nobody would get in your way. They might rob you, though.

ncmncm 6y ago
Plus matching air pressure and ambient temperature, and more insolation. But, yes, building in the middle of Antarctica would be overwhelmingly easier, safer, and cheaper. Nobody does, though.

tzs 6y ago

PBS Space Time did a short (7 minute) episode called "Should We Colonize Venus Instead of Mars?" [1] that gives several advantages Venus has as a colonization target compared to Mars (and covers some of the difficulties). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag

dwaltrip 6y ago

The advantage of Mars and Venus compared to Earth is that they are not Earth. Humans explore. It’s what we do. It seems very likely the Earth will also benefit. The technology developed to sustain humans in other places in the solar system possible will be impactful back home.