5 ms·
Uhh, we also weren't evolved to read books. We're post-evolution, even if we're not post-biology. There are plenty of people thinking through how we could hav
by nscalf 5y ago
Uhh, we also weren't evolved to read books. We're post-evolution, even if we're not post-biology. There are plenty of people thinking through how we could have a sustainable society on Mars, not really sure why people couldn't do the same thing here. You're assuming negative externalities without seeing what people could think up. Also, as far as the Earth's carrying capacity goes, the footprint per-individual is much larger than it used to be. The traditional statement of carrying capacity seems to need some reassessment, because there's a really good argument to make that global climate change is evidence that we are past our current carrying capacity.
I personally don't find the idea of Seasteading compelling.
- echelon 5y ago> Uhh, we also weren't evolved to read books. We're post-evolution, even if we're not post-biology. Reading doesn't pose a challenge to our basic needs (food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation), whereas Mars and seasteading do. The hill climbing barrier was considerably lower for our species. Outside of the accomplishments for science and engineering, there is likely little benefit in building up Mars as a habitable destination for humans to live at scale. Unless the economies of space mining can support it, there's really no reason to be there beyond a thousand or so individuals. I don't buy the astroid survival argument either. In the near term, putting humans on Mars does not de-risk the potential for an asteroid to cause human extinction. Mars colonies will likely still be reliant upon Earth for survival for a hundred years to come as they will not have adequate resources, support, or manufacturing capabilities for self-sustenance let alone growth. It's unlikely that a small colony could Matt Damon themselves back from the brink without a large industrial civilization backing them. Research into enhancing human lives here on earth and protecting our environment will pay greater dividends. I'd even wager that advances in AI/ML, BCI, and biology outpace space colonization tech due to their immediate applications and inherent venture capital fundability. (SpaceX will be funded because of the DoD, NASA, and terrestrial communications. Mars not so much.) > global climate change is evidence that we are past our current carrying capacity. The current economic and political regime doesn't curtail dumping carbon into the atmosphere. The correlation with population is complicated. China and the United States, two of the largest contributors to CO2 emissions, have slowing population growth if you discount immigration.
- rtkwe 5y agoI'm convinced he biggest benefit to colonizing Mars if we have the technology is that there won't be as many people there. If you can make Mars livable you can make anywhere on Earth livable even post climate crisis. The real thing that goes away is there won't be 7ish billion other people who also want to keep living trying to copy the tech and competing for those resources.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago> Mars colonies will likely still be reliant upon Earth for survival for a hundred years to come as they will not have adequate resources, support, or manufacturing capabilities for self-sustenance let alone growth. It'll take a hundred years after we start for the asteroid survival argument to be valid. A hundred years is too long, so let's never start.
- golergka 5y ago> Reading doesn't pose a challenge to our basic needs Having had developed a -7 vision by 12 years old, I'd beg to differ. Because of books, I'm completely useless without contacts or glasses in human "natural habitat".
- ska 5y agoThere is some limited evidence that a lot of close focusing (e.g. reading) may contribute to myopia, but it's hardly conclusive, and certainly at that magnitude is unlikely to be a single cause.
- klipt 5y ago> We're post-evolution Definitely not.
- echelon 5y agoWe're post "natural" (for some definitions) selection. C-sections, pre- and post-natal care, life-saving medical advances, glasses/contacts, artificial limbs, ... Not to mention most people don't actually hunt or grow their own food, build their own shelters, or sew their own clothing. But evolution is still happening. (nit: I had this comment sitting in a buffer because downvotes on this thread and elsewhere subject me to the HN bad commentor rate limit.)
- WesleyHale 5y agoThere are still incurable diseases and cancers some are immune to and some are not due to genetics.
- NortySpock 5y agoI don't think your parent poster would disagree with that statement. If different things kill you, natural selection shifts slightly.
- nscalf 5y agoYep, this is more or less what I meant by post evolution. We are clearly still changing by natural means, but for most of the existence of all living things in the world, change occurred by evolving. Humans change by using technology to intervene, and the rate of change of our intervention mechanisms is so massive that we’ll likely not notice evolution in any meaningful scale ever again.
- falcor84 5y agoWhat do you mean by "definitely"? Other than some evidence of evolving protection against HIV in Africa, I'm not familiar with any good evidence of modern day selective pressure.