4 ms·

I mean, when you take your inspiration from television and sci-fi movies it does seem like rich people doing vanity ego projects is the best way for us to survi

by kmnc 5y ago

I mean, when you take your inspiration from television and sci-fi movies it does seem like rich people doing vanity ego projects is the best way for us to survive as a species. Assuming you mean mean the "rich" when you say species, because unless you are watching different movies then me the non rich don't survive or are turned into a slave class. The Earth...well its prospects are even grimmer. It is stupid to be cynical of rich people spending money on productive ventures, yet I don't buy the idea that spending on getting the hell off of Earth is the best way to save the species. It might be...which is pretty damned depressing in my opinion.

Zelphyr 5y ago
I just finished The Calculating Stars by Mary Robinette Kowal. It is a fantastic piece of alternate history science fiction that I highly recommend. I mention it because the premise is that a meteorite hits the earth off the east coast of the United States and what the after-effects of such an event would be. It's horrific. A slow death at first that rapidly increases over a period of 50 years. It would be paradoxical because the immediate effects would be cold but the long-term effects would be a planet so hot that it couldn't sustain life. Our global response to COVID has proven that we wouldn't be able to handle such a thing. How would you convince people that, sure, it's cold now but it's going to get hotter in 3-4 years? A LOT hotter. We can't even get these people to not freak out over having to wear a tiny piece of fabric in Costco! We know something like this is going to happen. It's just a matter of when. Spending money to get off the earth could very well be the best way to save the species.
tdfx 5y ago
> I don't buy the idea that spending on getting the hell off of Earth is the best way to save the species What are the alternatives? On a long enough timeline, it won't be possible for life to survive here. And even on shorter timelines, trusting in untested asteroid deflection plans seems pretty risky, as well. Seems that diversifying ourselves in multiple locations as soon as possible is the best way to guarantee survival of the species (or whatever derivative species we become).
- courtf 5y ago
  There's no reason to believe we can sustain human life on Mars. Immense technical and biological hurdles stand in the way of that being possible, much less worth focusing on while the planet that does sustain life can still be saved. Believing the human race needs to go to another planet in our solar system to survive is philosophical suicide for sci-fi fans, akin to believing that saving Earth is futile because the rapture is imminent. To the degree that it distracts from the very real problems on Earth that must be solved and are in fact less daunting than living in Mars, it may even contribute to our literal suicide as a species.
  - tdfx 5y ago
    > it may even contribute to our literal suicide as a species Much as choosing to stay on earth is guaranteed suicide for humanity, on a long enough timescale. I would hate to see all of our eggs in one basket.
    - courtf 5y ago
      On a long enough timescale aliens will come and rescue us! See how silly that sounds? Pretending to save humanity with absurdities is a cowardly way of facing the real, imminent problems we actually have here and now.
      - tdfx 5y ago
        I don't understand why you think sustaining human life anywhere beyond earth is an absurdity. The large technological hurdles you mentioned aren't going to solve themselves, we have to start somewhere, and the sooner the better.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  On a long enough timescale the heat death of the universe will occur and there won't be any free energy left for life to exist. Therefore we must invest massive resources today to finding another universe. All life in the universe depends on this, so you can see how important it is.

by kmnc 5y ago

Zelphyr 5y ago

I just finished The Calculating Stars by Mary Robinette Kowal. It is a fantastic piece of alternate history science fiction that I highly recommend. I mention it because the premise is that a meteorite hits the earth off the east coast of the United States and what the after-effects of such an event would be. It's horrific. A slow death at first that rapidly increases over a period of 50 years. It would be paradoxical because the immediate effects would be cold but the long-term effects would be a planet so hot that it couldn't sustain life. Our global response to COVID has proven that we wouldn't be able to handle such a thing. How would you convince people that, sure, it's cold now but it's going to get hotter in 3-4 years? A LOT hotter. We can't even get these people to not freak out over having to wear a tiny piece of fabric in Costco! We know something like this is going to happen. It's just a matter of when. Spending money to get off the earth could very well be the best way to save the species.

tdfx 5y ago

> I don't buy the idea that spending on getting the hell off of Earth is the best way to save the species What are the alternatives? On a long enough timeline, it won't be possible for life to survive here. And even on shorter timelines, trusting in untested asteroid deflection plans seems pretty risky, as well. Seems that diversifying ourselves in multiple locations as soon as possible is the best way to guarantee survival of the species (or whatever derivative species we become).

courtf 5y ago
There's no reason to believe we can sustain human life on Mars. Immense technical and biological hurdles stand in the way of that being possible, much less worth focusing on while the planet that does sustain life can still be saved. Believing the human race needs to go to another planet in our solar system to survive is philosophical suicide for sci-fi fans, akin to believing that saving Earth is futile because the rapture is imminent. To the degree that it distracts from the very real problems on Earth that must be solved and are in fact less daunting than living in Mars, it may even contribute to our literal suicide as a species.
- tdfx 5y ago
  > it may even contribute to our literal suicide as a species Much as choosing to stay on earth is guaranteed suicide for humanity, on a long enough timescale. I would hate to see all of our eggs in one basket.
  - courtf 5y ago
    On a long enough timescale aliens will come and rescue us! See how silly that sounds? Pretending to save humanity with absurdities is a cowardly way of facing the real, imminent problems we actually have here and now.
    - tdfx 5y ago
      I don't understand why you think sustaining human life anywhere beyond earth is an absurdity. The large technological hurdles you mentioned aren't going to solve themselves, we have to start somewhere, and the sooner the better.
ModernMech 5y ago
On a long enough timescale the heat death of the universe will occur and there won't be any free energy left for life to exist. Therefore we must invest massive resources today to finding another universe. All life in the universe depends on this, so you can see how important it is.