26 ms·

Why do you want the ability to vent such potent greenhouse gasses? I'd like the ability to visit space at some point in my life, and I'd like our species to be

by ericd 3y ago

Why do you want the ability to vent such potent greenhouse gasses? I'd like the ability to visit space at some point in my life, and I'd like our species to become experienced at doing things in space. Like, if we need to be able to deploy something in space to decrease the amount of heat we're taking in to try and buy more time to decarbonize before we're completely F'd because of all the people venting potent greenhouse gasses from their HVAC systems, it'd be nice if we already had a space industrial complex capable of supporting that goal.

lacrimacida 3y ago
The space industrial complex would pollute a whole lot more than today, and let’s hope space tourism it’s not something too feasible, aside from stroking egos it wouldn’t do much, space is very human unfriendly after all. I for one hope we move slower not faster.
- ericd 3y ago
  It’s not just stroking egos; if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite. I hope every powerful person gets the chance to do that, I think it’d go a long way in reducing the petty bullshit we engage in.
  - jack_pp 3y ago
    You could do that with a VR headset
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - bergon 3y ago
    Or, you know, you just check your ego from earth. Not sure how much of an impact the trip had on Bezos, and I wouldn't put my hope on such trips fixing the other ones.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    Stroking egos is all that that would do. It seems that most of our most powerful leaders (so-called) are sociopaths or psychopaths.[1] Are people who are pathologically incapable of basic empathy and compassion going to be moved by a joyride to watch the Big Blue Ball? I wouldn’t hold my breath. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eBN_9rMoVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eBN_9rMoVI
  - serf 3y ago
    I mean, we have a precedent; did Bezos' trip substantiate radical pro-human changes in his businesses? The only thing I read about resulting from that trip was Shatner's induced depression over the sight.
    - ericd 3y ago
      My impression is that Bezos isn't involved in day-to-day operations anymore?
  - palata 3y ago
    > if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite Still no astronaut says that they don't want to go back because it contributes to destroying the planet, do they? Don't get me wrong: I would probably throw my principles out the window if I got to become an astronaut. But I don't think we can say that going in space makes you a big environmental activist.
    - ericd 3y ago
      The carbon footprint of an astronaut going into space on eg a Falcon 9 is on the order of that of a couple average American families for a year. It's not a huge impact compared to how much they advance our understanding of how to live in space (back of the envelope, ~150 tons of kerosene yielding ~500 tons of CO2, 50 tons for the average American family for a year). I haven't run the numbers on Starship, but my impression is that it'll be significantly more efficient.
      - palata 3y ago
        > The carbon footprint of an astronaut going into space on eg a Falcon 9 is on the order of that of a couple average American families for a year. You certainly mean the direct carbon footprint, right? Not counting what was involved in building the rocket, importing the material, test launches while developing the technology, etc? > It's not a huge impact compared to how much they advance our understanding of how to live in space Not sure I get that comparison. So you say "it's okay to contribute destroying life conditions on Earth in this case, given how much it helps us understand how to make people survive around Earth"? We can't move the Earth population to live in orbit once surviving on the ground is impossible, so it's a bit like saying "the carbon footprint of burning tires is not huge compared to how practical it is as a way to get rid of tires", IMO. We won't, as a species, go live in orbit, we won't go live on the Moon, and we won't go live on March. And we quite certainly will not ever reach the next star (which is what, 4 light-years away?). We don't need to understand how to live in space in order to survive on Earth. And right now we are destroying Earth. We need to first learn how to survive on Earth, and then maybe we can consider playing with human spaceflights again. > I haven't run the numbers on Starship, but my impression is that it'll be significantly more efficient. Again, you're missing all the indirect impact, and then all the rebound effects. Every success of SpaceX gets us into a world where the space business (because it is now a business) emits more CO2. I don't know why people don't get the memo, but right now our survival depends on reducing our CO2 emissions, not increasing them.

by ericd 3y ago

lacrimacida 3y ago

The space industrial complex would pollute a whole lot more than today, and let’s hope space tourism it’s not something too feasible, aside from stroking egos it wouldn’t do much, space is very human unfriendly after all. I for one hope we move slower not faster.

ericd 3y ago
It’s not just stroking egos; if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite. I hope every powerful person gets the chance to do that, I think it’d go a long way in reducing the petty bullshit we engage in.
- jack_pp 3y ago
  You could do that with a VR headset
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bergon 3y ago
  Or, you know, you just check your ego from earth. Not sure how much of an impact the trip had on Bezos, and I wouldn't put my hope on such trips fixing the other ones.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Stroking egos is all that that would do. It seems that most of our most powerful leaders (so-called) are sociopaths or psychopaths.[1] Are people who are pathologically incapable of basic empathy and compassion going to be moved by a joyride to watch the Big Blue Ball? I wouldn’t hold my breath. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eBN_9rMoVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eBN_9rMoVI
- serf 3y ago
  I mean, we have a precedent; did Bezos' trip substantiate radical pro-human changes in his businesses? The only thing I read about resulting from that trip was Shatner's induced depression over the sight.
  - ericd 3y ago
    My impression is that Bezos isn't involved in day-to-day operations anymore?
- palata 3y ago
  > if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite Still no astronaut says that they don't want to go back because it contributes to destroying the planet, do they? Don't get me wrong: I would probably throw my principles out the window if I got to become an astronaut. But I don't think we can say that going in space makes you a big environmental activist.
  - ericd 3y ago
    The carbon footprint of an astronaut going into space on eg a Falcon 9 is on the order of that of a couple average American families for a year. It's not a huge impact compared to how much they advance our understanding of how to live in space (back of the envelope, ~150 tons of kerosene yielding ~500 tons of CO2, 50 tons for the average American family for a year). I haven't run the numbers on Starship, but my impression is that it'll be significantly more efficient.
    - palata 3y ago
      > The carbon footprint of an astronaut going into space on eg a Falcon 9 is on the order of that of a couple average American families for a year. You certainly mean the direct carbon footprint, right? Not counting what was involved in building the rocket, importing the material, test launches while developing the technology, etc? > It's not a huge impact compared to how much they advance our understanding of how to live in space Not sure I get that comparison. So you say "it's okay to contribute destroying life conditions on Earth in this case, given how much it helps us understand how to make people survive around Earth"? We can't move the Earth population to live in orbit once surviving on the ground is impossible, so it's a bit like saying "the carbon footprint of burning tires is not huge compared to how practical it is as a way to get rid of tires", IMO. We won't, as a species, go live in orbit, we won't go live on the Moon, and we won't go live on March. And we quite certainly will not ever reach the next star (which is what, 4 light-years away?). We don't need to understand how to live in space in order to survive on Earth. And right now we are destroying Earth. We need to first learn how to survive on Earth, and then maybe we can consider playing with human spaceflights again. > I haven't run the numbers on Starship, but my impression is that it'll be significantly more efficient. Again, you're missing all the indirect impact, and then all the rebound effects. Every success of SpaceX gets us into a world where the space business (because it is now a business) emits more CO2. I don't know why people don't get the memo, but right now our survival depends on reducing our CO2 emissions, not increasing them.