4 ms·

I have been doing a lot of flying over the deserts using flight simulators. There is so much space still on the planet! At the same time, we can't afford to use

by dsign 5y ago

I have been doing a lot of flying over the deserts using flight simulators. There is so much space still on the planet! At the same time, we can't afford to use any more of it. Let's face it, we never were a benign species for the other ones[^1], not even when we were naked and mostly ate roots. But without space to live, grow, and try new things, our humanity is maimed. The path of least losing is leaving the planet alone, and making our own habitats. [^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

edgyquant 5y ago
Plus if we figure out rotating habitats and how to grow nature within them it’ll be a lot more comfortable to live in one of those than to live in the desert
- ncmncm 5y ago
  They seem overwhelmingly more appealing than squatting on Mars. But so vulnerable to attack. Or neglect. It would be way easier and cheaper to build one unrolled out onto an actual desert. And safer. Maybe try that first?
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    you might be a fan of paulo soleri’s architecture, as illustrated in the book “city in the image of man” - he designs utopian megastructures (arcologies) that exist in spite of desolate conditions while still respecting our connection to nature: residences are at the edge of the city, so that the wilderness is always in view. You can stay in the guest rooms at Arcosanti, the city he started building in the 70s, it’s wonderful having a glass wall looking out to the barren desert, knowing i can walk 5 minutes up the path to a whole “city” of a cafe, theater, and workshops.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    Disclaimer: I am a self taught programmer, not a structural engineer or physicists. What you say is true but with a couple of caveats. 1. Yes it would likely be cheaper to build domed habitats in the desert. But how long will that be the case? In the desert you have to build on top of sand (or dig way down and build a crazy foundation that would likely cost close to a space habitat) and there may be local governments who aren’t keen on random immigrants coming and building giant domes in their territory. 2. Humans have lived on Earth for a hundred thousand years and have barely colonized the most extreme deserts (both frozen and unfrozen.) The reason thus far is because there isn’t a good economic reason to do so. We’re talking about colonizing the solar system, for resources or whatever, so the idea is that colonizing the desert isn’t sufficient. 3. Space is empty right now so we have to bring everything up from the surface. In a future where people have an economic need to colonize Mars it would make sense to have infrastructure in space that allows for mining/etc so that you don’t need to lift 100% of the resources off the planet. In which case, and with decent automation, it may become cheaper to build habitats in space than it is to build buildings on Earth. If it’s early and there is no infrastructure in space there likely isn’t an economic need and thus those who lived there would be doing so for their own pleasure and would pay a premium. To clarify: My argument isn’t that we should build these habitats or we should colonize anywhere at all. But if people are wanting to colonize Mars it would be cheaper and nicer just to build rotating habitats with Earth like gravity and whatever weather you choose. I know if worked on Mars I’d prefer to live in a sunny paradise orbiting it than live below the surface while only having 1/3 gravity.
    - jandrese 5y ago
      This sort of talk always kills the dreams of orbital living. There's no point building a colony on mars if we can't even build a self-sufficient lunar habitat. But there is no point in a lunar habitat if we can't build an orbital habitat. But there is not point building an orbital habitat if we can't even build a self sufficient desert or ocean or underground habitat. If we were really serious about this we would have a followup to the Biosphere projects that finally solved the issues they identified. We should have several fully self contained habitats on Earth before we consider building them in orbit or on another planet. People are trying to skip all the way to the end without doing all of the hard work in the middle. It's doomed to failure.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Exactly the point. Every detail of the most hostile spot on Earth is overwhelmingly more viable as a place to homestead than the best imaginable site on Mars. The middle of the Sahara Desert, bang at the South Pole, under the ice at the northernmost bit of Greenland, on a tepui in Venezuela without permission, on a desert island where typhoon waves wash all the way across, all are more pleasant and less likely to kill everyone who goes there in the first year. So, pick such a place, and try it there first. If you aren't even talking about that, you are far from ready to make a go at someplace massively more hostile to your very existence.
UnFleshedOne 5y ago
> we never were a benign species for the other ones I mostly agree, with a single caveat: there are (and never were) any benign species. There are only insufficiently capable ones.

by dsign 5y ago

edgyquant 5y ago

Plus if we figure out rotating habitats and how to grow nature within them it’ll be a lot more comfortable to live in one of those than to live in the desert

ncmncm 5y ago
They seem overwhelmingly more appealing than squatting on Mars. But so vulnerable to attack. Or neglect. It would be way easier and cheaper to build one unrolled out onto an actual desert. And safer. Maybe try that first?
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  you might be a fan of paulo soleri’s architecture, as illustrated in the book “city in the image of man” - he designs utopian megastructures (arcologies) that exist in spite of desolate conditions while still respecting our connection to nature: residences are at the edge of the city, so that the wilderness is always in view. You can stay in the guest rooms at Arcosanti, the city he started building in the 70s, it’s wonderful having a glass wall looking out to the barren desert, knowing i can walk 5 minutes up the path to a whole “city” of a cafe, theater, and workshops.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Disclaimer: I am a self taught programmer, not a structural engineer or physicists. What you say is true but with a couple of caveats. 1. Yes it would likely be cheaper to build domed habitats in the desert. But how long will that be the case? In the desert you have to build on top of sand (or dig way down and build a crazy foundation that would likely cost close to a space habitat) and there may be local governments who aren’t keen on random immigrants coming and building giant domes in their territory. 2. Humans have lived on Earth for a hundred thousand years and have barely colonized the most extreme deserts (both frozen and unfrozen.) The reason thus far is because there isn’t a good economic reason to do so. We’re talking about colonizing the solar system, for resources or whatever, so the idea is that colonizing the desert isn’t sufficient. 3. Space is empty right now so we have to bring everything up from the surface. In a future where people have an economic need to colonize Mars it would make sense to have infrastructure in space that allows for mining/etc so that you don’t need to lift 100% of the resources off the planet. In which case, and with decent automation, it may become cheaper to build habitats in space than it is to build buildings on Earth. If it’s early and there is no infrastructure in space there likely isn’t an economic need and thus those who lived there would be doing so for their own pleasure and would pay a premium. To clarify: My argument isn’t that we should build these habitats or we should colonize anywhere at all. But if people are wanting to colonize Mars it would be cheaper and nicer just to build rotating habitats with Earth like gravity and whatever weather you choose. I know if worked on Mars I’d prefer to live in a sunny paradise orbiting it than live below the surface while only having 1/3 gravity.
  - jandrese 5y ago
    This sort of talk always kills the dreams of orbital living. There's no point building a colony on mars if we can't even build a self-sufficient lunar habitat. But there is no point in a lunar habitat if we can't build an orbital habitat. But there is not point building an orbital habitat if we can't even build a self sufficient desert or ocean or underground habitat. If we were really serious about this we would have a followup to the Biosphere projects that finally solved the issues they identified. We should have several fully self contained habitats on Earth before we consider building them in orbit or on another planet. People are trying to skip all the way to the end without doing all of the hard work in the middle. It's doomed to failure.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Exactly the point. Every detail of the most hostile spot on Earth is overwhelmingly more viable as a place to homestead than the best imaginable site on Mars. The middle of the Sahara Desert, bang at the South Pole, under the ice at the northernmost bit of Greenland, on a tepui in Venezuela without permission, on a desert island where typhoon waves wash all the way across, all are more pleasant and less likely to kill everyone who goes there in the first year. So, pick such a place, and try it there first. If you aren't even talking about that, you are far from ready to make a go at someplace massively more hostile to your very existence.

UnFleshedOne 5y ago

> we never were a benign species for the other ones I mostly agree, with a single caveat: there are (and never were) any benign species. There are only insufficiently capable ones.