4 ms·

We’re doomed if we don’t spread out. Staying on earth guarantees destruction by asteroid, super volcano, coronal mass ejection, war, disease, ecological collaps

We’re doomed if we don’t spread out. Staying on earth guarantees destruction by asteroid, super volcano, coronal mass ejection, war, disease, ecological collapse, etc. Settling the solar system is a bit better but still subject to rogue brown dwarfs or black holes, gamma ray bursts, variability of Sol its eventual death. Even settling our local group of stars could end badly with a big enough super nova. Every year we delay expanding into the universe is another light year of distance we may never get back.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> We’re doomed Yup. We're doomed, because we're an evolving species. In a few hundred thousand years we'll be very different - perhaps our overweight brains will have shrunk, and we'll no longer be curious about silly things like the origin or final fate of the Universe. "Spreading out" is more likely to happen to fungus and bacteria spores, than bipedal mammals.
- mellavora 4y ago
  > In a few hundred thousand years we'll be very different.. And thanks to the magic of epigenetic regulation, I'd say we'll be pretty different in 600 years. We are following the path of the social insects, becoming more drone-like, docile, and specialized. Also more humane and selfless. Also more childlike.
  - Mtinie 4y ago
    Eloi-esque.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Obesity rates and cultural milieu suggest that it's not just Eloi-esque, unfortunately. But I think you nailed the general trend.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      Not really. The Eloi seem to be like wealthy students - young, good teeth, straight blonde hair, nice duds, no job they have to do. There doesn't appear to be any significant evolution that could have affected them since the present. Only the Morlocks appear to have changed; there are no contemporary humans that are remotely like Morlocks. Dammit, this is scifi from 100 years ago; it doesn't throw any light on the future of humanity. I'm going to butt out, because I think this is OT.
      - mellavora 4y ago
        science fiction from 100 years ago, based on the author's observations of the switch from agrarian to urban/mechanized life (i.e. the start of the the epigenetic shift I referred to) matches biological realities revealed over the last few decades (thank you E O Wilson) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson doesn't throw any light? Perhaps, thought of course that would depend on what spectrum of light one was sensitive to. I, for one, have a hard time seeing ultraviolet. Unlike my friends the bees.
        denton-scratch 4y ago
        "Mellavora" - is that honey-eater, in some language?
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > Yup. We're doomed, because we're an evolving species. In a few hundred thousand years we'll be very different - perhaps our overweight brains will have shrunk, and we'll no longer be curious about silly things like the origin or final fate of the Universe. You might enjoy Vonnegut's Galapagos, if you've not read it. It's a quick and easy read like most of his books.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > Galapagos Yes, I read it. There's a twist in the tail that nobody should spoil. I haven't yet encountered anything by Vonnegut that I didn't enjoy reading. I want to re-read Breakfast of Champions. My first encounter was Slaughterhouse 5, followed closely by Cat's Cradle. So it goes.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      > I haven't yet encountered anything by Vonnegut that I didn't enjoy reading. Attempted Slapstick or Happy Birthday, Wanda June? :-) Or most of the posthumously-released material, for that matter. But yeah, his batting average was pretty damn high.
toofnbad 4y ago
I disagree. The Earth will end, but not in the timelines they provide. In a million years it is unlikely we won't have the technology to hold the sun back from expansion. All we need are orbiting superconducting supermagnets to hold back the sun, tame volcanos, hold back cosmic radiation, etc. Asteroids would be nothing but mining prospects to humans in 1 000 000 AD.
- bhedgeoser 4y ago
  I disagree. Forget about sun, the strongest weapons we have are microscopic even at the geological scale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSjratvNGmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSjratvNGmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUREX8aFbMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUREX8aFbMs
  - toofnbad 4y ago
    You're not telling me anything I don't already know. The strongest weapons we have /right now/ have no implications for what we will have in the future. A million years is a lot of time. Long live the Earth! We cannot conceive of how we will contain the suns expansion, just like cavemen could not conceive any of our technological advancements mundane to us.
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  One would think in a million years if we have that sort of technology, we would no longer be dependent on Earth for humans survival. Whether we would colonize other planets and make them habitable through terraform or build our own planets at that point. One could imagine an "Earth 2.0" that we can move around the solar system, positioning it perfectly for the right weather.
  - toofnbad 4y ago
    When you can tune the fusion of the sun using advanced particle physics and as of yet undiscovered branches of science, you don't need to move planets.
  - 4y ago
lisper 4y ago
> We’re doomed That depends on how you define "we". If you define "we" as "homo sapiens", or even "biological creatures evolved (and therefore specialized) for survival on earth" then you are almost certainly correct. And such a "we" is almost certainly doomed even if "we" do spread out because a "we" defined as organisms specialized for survival on earth cannot survive anywhere except some place that is very similar to earth. This is true by definition. This does not necessarily mean that "we" have to find other earths. "We" can engineer earth-like environments. But that is a lot of work. You can make the problem a lot easier simply by redefining what you mean by "we". If by "we" you mean "systems that think in a manner akin to what we (humans) do" that dramatically expands the scope of possible solutions. Being biological is (almost certainly) not a pre-requisite to thinking. By redefining "we" in this way we open the door to solving the problem by sending robots or even just raw information out into the universe. That is still a significant challenge of course, but it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to keep bags of water and meat alive (to say nothing of mentally competent) in interstellar space.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  I’m always amazed when people seem to miss the obvious answer. Robots won’t get us there. Digitizing consciousness won’t either. We already have perfectly good nanotechnology capable of adapting to any environment. It’s staring us in the face, literally when you look in a mirror. DNA and proteins are how you do nanotechnology right. Add to that a guiding consciousness so we don’t have to wait millions of years for the slow search algorithm of evolution to find the answer and there’s nothing we can’t do. Our biggest task is reverse engineering the machine and learning to control it but given the tools we have now I believe we can master it within this century. Interstellar distances at sub light speed are no obstacle if you have complete control over your biology/lifespan/metabolism. Just bring a big enough pile of enriched uranium, water and biomass and you’re good to go for hundreds of years. Yes we do still need mechanical and electrical machines where they are more efficient but biology can provide for the lion’s share of our needs once it is under our control.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Symmetry 4y ago
I'm all for spreading out but prudent stellar husbandry[1] is another potential solution to the problem. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
We're all going to be gone at some point regardless. We shouldn't make the effort to spread out if it's going to make the average person's life worse over the course of humanity's existence.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  The continued existence of humanity and life in general is a good in itself. Besides that, why would you think that space exploration and colonization would reduce living standards?
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    The continued existence of humanity is only a good to the degree that it brings good. The continued existence of a species of psychic vampires that draw sustenance from causing pain to other conscious beings would very much not be a good in itself, and with habit and environment destruction and worker subjugation/disenfranchisement our species causes in the name of unfettered capitalism we're not so far off from that. Big goals take sacrifice and hard work. Any cosmic human diaspora would require sacrificing earthly abundance and leisure, and the colonists wouldn't be having a good time either, so the main beneficiaries would be the billionaires and politicians that could wave their dicks around about how they're responsible for sending man to the stars.
    - towaway15463 4y ago
      Plenty of people choose sacrifice, hard work and discomfort because they find more fulfillment in it than idle leisure. Those who wish to remain behind can stay put, just don’t stand in the way.
      - CuriouslyC 4y ago
        Except that moonshots on the level of stellar diaspora require that sort of sacrifice from an entire society. If the 5% of the population that actually gave a shit about the idea of humans in the stars could do it by themselves I'd say go for it, but if it's going to happen they'll have to con people who will get nothing out of it into going along, which is obviously problematic.
cpsns 4y ago
Of course we’re doomed, on a long enough timeline our only fate is extinction. The only question is how long it will take to reach that point, it’s not a matter of “if”.
jjulius 4y ago
>We’re doomed if we don’t spread out. And we're doomed if we do. Ultimately, the universe will experience heat death and everything will cease to be. Have a wonderful weekend, everybody! :D
- towaway15463 4y ago
  If that’s the limiting factor then it gives us a heck of a lot of time to work on the answer.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Asimov knows the answer!

denton-scratch 4y ago

> We’re doomed Yup. We're doomed, because we're an evolving species. In a few hundred thousand years we'll be very different - perhaps our overweight brains will have shrunk, and we'll no longer be curious about silly things like the origin or final fate of the Universe. "Spreading out" is more likely to happen to fungus and bacteria spores, than bipedal mammals.

mellavora 4y ago
> In a few hundred thousand years we'll be very different.. And thanks to the magic of epigenetic regulation, I'd say we'll be pretty different in 600 years. We are following the path of the social insects, becoming more drone-like, docile, and specialized. Also more humane and selfless. Also more childlike.
- Mtinie 4y ago
  Eloi-esque.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Obesity rates and cultural milieu suggest that it's not just Eloi-esque, unfortunately. But I think you nailed the general trend.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Not really. The Eloi seem to be like wealthy students - young, good teeth, straight blonde hair, nice duds, no job they have to do. There doesn't appear to be any significant evolution that could have affected them since the present. Only the Morlocks appear to have changed; there are no contemporary humans that are remotely like Morlocks. Dammit, this is scifi from 100 years ago; it doesn't throw any light on the future of humanity. I'm going to butt out, because I think this is OT.
    - mellavora 4y ago
      science fiction from 100 years ago, based on the author's observations of the switch from agrarian to urban/mechanized life (i.e. the start of the the epigenetic shift I referred to) matches biological realities revealed over the last few decades (thank you E O Wilson) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson doesn't throw any light? Perhaps, thought of course that would depend on what spectrum of light one was sensitive to. I, for one, have a hard time seeing ultraviolet. Unlike my friends the bees.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        "Mellavora" - is that honey-eater, in some language?
yamtaddle 4y ago
> Yup. We're doomed, because we're an evolving species. In a few hundred thousand years we'll be very different - perhaps our overweight brains will have shrunk, and we'll no longer be curious about silly things like the origin or final fate of the Universe. You might enjoy Vonnegut's Galapagos, if you've not read it. It's a quick and easy read like most of his books.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Galapagos Yes, I read it. There's a twist in the tail that nobody should spoil. I haven't yet encountered anything by Vonnegut that I didn't enjoy reading. I want to re-read Breakfast of Champions. My first encounter was Slaughterhouse 5, followed closely by Cat's Cradle. So it goes.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > I haven't yet encountered anything by Vonnegut that I didn't enjoy reading. Attempted Slapstick or Happy Birthday, Wanda June? :-) Or most of the posthumously-released material, for that matter. But yeah, his batting average was pretty damn high.

toofnbad 4y ago

I disagree. The Earth will end, but not in the timelines they provide. In a million years it is unlikely we won't have the technology to hold the sun back from expansion. All we need are orbiting superconducting supermagnets to hold back the sun, tame volcanos, hold back cosmic radiation, etc. Asteroids would be nothing but mining prospects to humans in 1 000 000 AD.

bhedgeoser 4y ago
I disagree. Forget about sun, the strongest weapons we have are microscopic even at the geological scale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSjratvNGmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSjratvNGmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUREX8aFbMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUREX8aFbMs
- toofnbad 4y ago
  You're not telling me anything I don't already know. The strongest weapons we have /right now/ have no implications for what we will have in the future. A million years is a lot of time. Long live the Earth! We cannot conceive of how we will contain the suns expansion, just like cavemen could not conceive any of our technological advancements mundane to us.
_fat_santa 4y ago
One would think in a million years if we have that sort of technology, we would no longer be dependent on Earth for humans survival. Whether we would colonize other planets and make them habitable through terraform or build our own planets at that point. One could imagine an "Earth 2.0" that we can move around the solar system, positioning it perfectly for the right weather.
- toofnbad 4y ago
  When you can tune the fusion of the sun using advanced particle physics and as of yet undiscovered branches of science, you don't need to move planets.
- 4y ago

lisper 4y ago

> We’re doomed That depends on how you define "we". If you define "we" as "homo sapiens", or even "biological creatures evolved (and therefore specialized) for survival on earth" then you are almost certainly correct. And such a "we" is almost certainly doomed even if "we" do spread out because a "we" defined as organisms specialized for survival on earth cannot survive anywhere except some place that is very similar to earth. This is true by definition. This does not necessarily mean that "we" have to find other earths. "We" can engineer earth-like environments. But that is a lot of work. You can make the problem a lot easier simply by redefining what you mean by "we". If by "we" you mean "systems that think in a manner akin to what we (humans) do" that dramatically expands the scope of possible solutions. Being biological is (almost certainly) not a pre-requisite to thinking. By redefining "we" in this way we open the door to solving the problem by sending robots or even just raw information out into the universe. That is still a significant challenge of course, but it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to keep bags of water and meat alive (to say nothing of mentally competent) in interstellar space.

towaway15463 4y ago
I’m always amazed when people seem to miss the obvious answer. Robots won’t get us there. Digitizing consciousness won’t either. We already have perfectly good nanotechnology capable of adapting to any environment. It’s staring us in the face, literally when you look in a mirror. DNA and proteins are how you do nanotechnology right. Add to that a guiding consciousness so we don’t have to wait millions of years for the slow search algorithm of evolution to find the answer and there’s nothing we can’t do. Our biggest task is reverse engineering the machine and learning to control it but given the tools we have now I believe we can master it within this century. Interstellar distances at sub light speed are no obstacle if you have complete control over your biology/lifespan/metabolism. Just bring a big enough pile of enriched uranium, water and biomass and you’re good to go for hundreds of years. Yes we do still need mechanical and electrical machines where they are more efficient but biology can provide for the lion’s share of our needs once it is under our control.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Symmetry 4y ago

I'm all for spreading out but prudent stellar husbandry[1] is another potential solution to the problem. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

We're all going to be gone at some point regardless. We shouldn't make the effort to spread out if it's going to make the average person's life worse over the course of humanity's existence.

towaway15463 4y ago
The continued existence of humanity and life in general is a good in itself. Besides that, why would you think that space exploration and colonization would reduce living standards?
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  The continued existence of humanity is only a good to the degree that it brings good. The continued existence of a species of psychic vampires that draw sustenance from causing pain to other conscious beings would very much not be a good in itself, and with habit and environment destruction and worker subjugation/disenfranchisement our species causes in the name of unfettered capitalism we're not so far off from that. Big goals take sacrifice and hard work. Any cosmic human diaspora would require sacrificing earthly abundance and leisure, and the colonists wouldn't be having a good time either, so the main beneficiaries would be the billionaires and politicians that could wave their dicks around about how they're responsible for sending man to the stars.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    Plenty of people choose sacrifice, hard work and discomfort because they find more fulfillment in it than idle leisure. Those who wish to remain behind can stay put, just don’t stand in the way.
    - CuriouslyC 4y ago
      Except that moonshots on the level of stellar diaspora require that sort of sacrifice from an entire society. If the 5% of the population that actually gave a shit about the idea of humans in the stars could do it by themselves I'd say go for it, but if it's going to happen they'll have to con people who will get nothing out of it into going along, which is obviously problematic.

cpsns 4y ago

Of course we’re doomed, on a long enough timeline our only fate is extinction. The only question is how long it will take to reach that point, it’s not a matter of “if”.

jjulius 4y ago

>We’re doomed if we don’t spread out. And we're doomed if we do. Ultimately, the universe will experience heat death and everything will cease to be. Have a wonderful weekend, everybody! :D

towaway15463 4y ago
If that’s the limiting factor then it gives us a heck of a lot of time to work on the answer.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Asimov knows the answer!