3 ms·

Consider me skeptical we’ll ever make it there. Not because it’s beyond technology, but because I don’t have a lot of faith that humanity will be surviving the

Consider me skeptical we’ll ever make it there. Not because it’s beyond technology, but because I don’t have a lot of faith that humanity will be surviving the next 200 years.

calciphus 3y ago
Humans are like mammalian cockroaches. Some will make it.
- gabereiser 3y ago
  We lack the radiation-proof shell to withstand ourselves.
  - 1970-01-01 3y ago
    2 meters of dirt is all you really need
    - virgildotcodes 3y ago
      How many self-sufficient human civilizations have been sustained under 2 meters of dirt?
      - 1970-01-01 3y ago
        There are several civilizations that accomplished this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaymakli_Underground_City#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaymakli_Underground_City#See_...
        virgildotcodes 3y ago
        It doesn’t seem like those cities have any way to produce food underground without inputs from outside, so no, these would not be examples of self-sufficient underground civilizations. Really cool though, like something out of Dwarf Fortress. I’d never heard of these so thanks for sharing.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    Yeah, but the neat thing is, we can build them [=
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    We lack a lot of the things that we use daily.
- Pxtl 3y ago
  Well yeah, but if we're talking about a post-collapse society where environmental destruction and starvation-driven civil chaos has wreaked havoc on our infrastructure and all resources that can be easily accessed have been mined out, how many things are they going to be putting into orbit?
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  You're on a road, on foot or small vehicle, and you see a truck coming on collision course. What to do? You get out of the way. Obviously we can't deflect Earth from its orbit. This project showed we're able to deflect 'small' asteroids. In time, we may be able to deflect bigger ones. @ Some point, there will be an incoming asteroid that's too big to make it avoid collision. When (not if!) that happens, only option might be to escape into space, watch Earth being hit, and maybe return there some day. Chances are this will happen so far in the future, that humans don't exist any more, or have moved to other planets or even star systems, with Earth being just one of many homes. So... who cares. As long as we can avoid species-killing event long enough for significant numbers of us to get off this rock, our species could survive. That is, if we don't nuke ourselves first.
Pxtl 3y ago
Well then our AI successors will still need some kind of meteor defense.
- K0balt 3y ago
  Here doing gods own work, opening the way for the next significant species.
localplume 3y ago
this doomerism is insane. look at the 20th century and what happend, yet we made it through. and you have some people thinking somehow life is worse and its actually going downhill? life is better than it has ever been. the only way humanity will not make it is if doomers keep pushing their dumb worldview and treating it as fact that the world is worse than its ever been, thus refusing to fix any problems. maybe go read a history book
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
slashdev 3y ago
I see this kind of negativity all the time, usually over climate change and environmental destruction. Those things definitely can impact the human population. They can even end our current civilization as we know it, which is somewhat fragile. But humans will survive, we’re extremely adaptable and hard to exterminate. We live in every terrestrial biome. There are two things that could actually end us. One is a celestial disaster powerful enough to sterilize the terrestrial part of the planet. That’s very unlikely, but not imposible. The other is we replace ourselves with a competing organism, either biological or mechanical that’s not human, doesn’t need us, but is so much better than us at life that we can’t compete. Like general AI with a physical presence, or a genetically or cyberneticly modified super-human that lacks humanity, that we wouldn’t consider human. Those are highly possible scenarios over the next 200 years.
- Pxtl 3y ago
  Yes, the annihilation of humanity is basically impossible in the near-term without a celestial disaster, but the functionally-permanent end of modern civilization is not. Like, reasonable scenario: Climate change causes mass starvation and environmental inhospitability. Mass-deaths and some very violent migration happens. The last few years have showed us how fragile our infrastructure is, right? Between covid-shutdown supply-chain problems and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we're seeing how fragile civilization is. It's not crazy to imagine privation leading to violence leading to destroyed infrastructure leading to more privation in a vicious cycle. This ultimately could lead to a return to a comparatively primitive society where anything that relies on sophisticated supply-chains is out of reach. Like moving 100 years back in time. But the tech of the day depended on far easier mining, sources which are now mined out. So we've destroyed the bottom rungs of the ladder that we no longer need... until we do. And also, industrial-age tech is carbon-intensive. Is it possible to build decent solar cells and wind power without a global supply chain? Or will we burn down the world for power, causing even more climate change, which will create another vicious cycle? So we could be looking at a technological and civilization-level regression that wouldn't be remedied until another geological era.
  - slashdev 3y ago
Zetice 3y ago
I agreed with you in the first half, that we won't ever make it to "sci fi space defense", but not because humans don't persist. More likely we never make it there because of a host of other, more boring reasons, mostly; we won't need anything like it. Who, exactly are we defending ourselves against? A once-in-a-million-years impact that this very test showed we have a conceptual means of resolving?
moomoo11 3y ago
I’m glad so many people are pessimistic because then I know I can do my best for humanity for myself and my loved and close ones. Why do it for the masses who are ungrateful and only complain instead of trying to help? They’re welcome to come along for the ride, but they’ll always sit there and cry/complain/be annoying.

Consider me skeptical we’ll ever make it there. Not because it’s beyond technology, but because I don’t have a lot of faith that humanity will be surviving the next 200 years.

calciphus 3y ago

Humans are like mammalian cockroaches. Some will make it.

gabereiser 3y ago
We lack the radiation-proof shell to withstand ourselves.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  2 meters of dirt is all you really need
  - virgildotcodes 3y ago
    How many self-sufficient human civilizations have been sustained under 2 meters of dirt?
    - 1970-01-01 3y ago
      There are several civilizations that accomplished this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaymakli_Underground_City#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaymakli_Underground_City#See_...
      - virgildotcodes 3y ago
        It doesn’t seem like those cities have any way to produce food underground without inputs from outside, so no, these would not be examples of self-sufficient underground civilizations. Really cool though, like something out of Dwarf Fortress. I’d never heard of these so thanks for sharing.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  Yeah, but the neat thing is, we can build them [=
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  We lack a lot of the things that we use daily.
Pxtl 3y ago
Well yeah, but if we're talking about a post-collapse society where environmental destruction and starvation-driven civil chaos has wreaked havoc on our infrastructure and all resources that can be easily accessed have been mined out, how many things are they going to be putting into orbit?
RetroTechie 3y ago
You're on a road, on foot or small vehicle, and you see a truck coming on collision course. What to do? You get out of the way. Obviously we can't deflect Earth from its orbit. This project showed we're able to deflect 'small' asteroids. In time, we may be able to deflect bigger ones. @ Some point, there will be an incoming asteroid that's too big to make it avoid collision. When (not if!) that happens, only option might be to escape into space, watch Earth being hit, and maybe return there some day. Chances are this will happen so far in the future, that humans don't exist any more, or have moved to other planets or even star systems, with Earth being just one of many homes. So... who cares. As long as we can avoid species-killing event long enough for significant numbers of us to get off this rock, our species could survive. That is, if we don't nuke ourselves first.

Pxtl 3y ago

Well then our AI successors will still need some kind of meteor defense.

K0balt 3y ago
Here doing gods own work, opening the way for the next significant species.

localplume 3y ago

this doomerism is insane. look at the 20th century and what happend, yet we made it through. and you have some people thinking somehow life is worse and its actually going downhill? life is better than it has ever been. the only way humanity will not make it is if doomers keep pushing their dumb worldview and treating it as fact that the world is worse than its ever been, thus refusing to fix any problems. maybe go read a history book

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

slashdev 3y ago

I see this kind of negativity all the time, usually over climate change and environmental destruction. Those things definitely can impact the human population. They can even end our current civilization as we know it, which is somewhat fragile. But humans will survive, we’re extremely adaptable and hard to exterminate. We live in every terrestrial biome. There are two things that could actually end us. One is a celestial disaster powerful enough to sterilize the terrestrial part of the planet. That’s very unlikely, but not imposible. The other is we replace ourselves with a competing organism, either biological or mechanical that’s not human, doesn’t need us, but is so much better than us at life that we can’t compete. Like general AI with a physical presence, or a genetically or cyberneticly modified super-human that lacks humanity, that we wouldn’t consider human. Those are highly possible scenarios over the next 200 years.

Pxtl 3y ago
Yes, the annihilation of humanity is basically impossible in the near-term without a celestial disaster, but the functionally-permanent end of modern civilization is not. Like, reasonable scenario: Climate change causes mass starvation and environmental inhospitability. Mass-deaths and some very violent migration happens. The last few years have showed us how fragile our infrastructure is, right? Between covid-shutdown supply-chain problems and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we're seeing how fragile civilization is. It's not crazy to imagine privation leading to violence leading to destroyed infrastructure leading to more privation in a vicious cycle. This ultimately could lead to a return to a comparatively primitive society where anything that relies on sophisticated supply-chains is out of reach. Like moving 100 years back in time. But the tech of the day depended on far easier mining, sources which are now mined out. So we've destroyed the bottom rungs of the ladder that we no longer need... until we do. And also, industrial-age tech is carbon-intensive. Is it possible to build decent solar cells and wind power without a global supply chain? Or will we burn down the world for power, causing even more climate change, which will create another vicious cycle? So we could be looking at a technological and civilization-level regression that wouldn't be remedied until another geological era.
- slashdev 3y ago

Zetice 3y ago

I agreed with you in the first half, that we won't ever make it to "sci fi space defense", but not because humans don't persist. More likely we never make it there because of a host of other, more boring reasons, mostly; we won't need anything like it. Who, exactly are we defending ourselves against? A once-in-a-million-years impact that this very test showed we have a conceptual means of resolving?

moomoo11 3y ago

I’m glad so many people are pessimistic because then I know I can do my best for humanity for myself and my loved and close ones. Why do it for the masses who are ungrateful and only complain instead of trying to help? They’re welcome to come along for the ride, but they’ll always sit there and cry/complain/be annoying.