3 ms·

I don't have much hope for Mars, considering we can't even take care of this planet. Moreover, prospects of living on Mars may make some even more lackadaisical

I don't have much hope for Mars, considering we can't even take care of this planet. Moreover, prospects of living on Mars may make some even more lackadaisical about destroying earth. Instead of investing in this sort of research, we should invest more money in protecting oceans and habitats and living sustainably. We tend to seek technological solutions to our problems, but where has that led us? Cars, fossil fuel use, massive cities, most people wasting away as drones for global corporations. The problem behind this sort of technology is that it's just an intellectual exercise that is fun for researchers and is trendy because it's about AI, but I sincerely doubt it will contribute any good to the world.

jjoonathan 3y ago
> I don't have much hope for Mars, considering we can't even take care of this planet The hard part of taking care of this planet is that every inch is covered with intricate and interconnected systems already. Almost anything you do is guaranteed to have significant side effects and the effort required to mitigate them is extreme. In space this is much less of a problem, comparatively speaking.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  No, the hard part of taking care of this planet is that we keep chasing after a lifestyle that is farther and farther away from nature. It's a choice we've made, not something intrinsic to the world.
  - ghufran_syed 3y ago
    Dying of tetanus after a cut, or dying in childbirth is pretty natural - and electricity, computers and the internet are pretty unnatural. I'm glad I live in an "unnatural" time and place
  - feoren 3y ago
    We can have nice things and also take care of the planet. If your suggested solution to climate change is that we all wear loincloths and live out in the trees, foraging for a paleo diet, then your suggestion is going to be immediately ignored by everyone. There's no point in even suggesting trying to return to pre-industrial times, especially since we very clearly do not need to. Climate change is a massive engineering and social problem, but somehow reverting to pre-industrial times is an order of magnitude harder on both fronts. And pointless.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      I'm not suggesting returning to pre-industrial times, but rather slowing down the development of technology and getting rid of some technology.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    But you are free to peace out, put your phone down, and go live in a cave if you want... at any point
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Which obviously won't rescue you from the negative consequences of everyone around you choosing to pump combusted fossil fuels into the air you breathe. All the same costs and none of the benefits: what a pitch!
      - FredPret 3y ago
        Ah, so we ALL have to go back to the caves with you, for your sake. Got it.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Well, no, not me. I didn't make that argument to begin with, I was just pointing out how nonsensical your counterargument was. Yeah, if mass production and mass consumption is causing the problem, distributed across the commons, then it's pretty obvious that an individual choosing to "opt out" isn't going to solve the problem.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Parent wanted to be "closer to nature", my solution would work perfectly for him. By the way, as creatures that evolved into a world already engaged in tool use and cooking on camp fires, we are fundamentally technological. That smartphone is as natural as a shrub. It's just new, that's the only difference.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        > the hard part of taking care of this planet is… GP’s motive is to take care of the planet (and reading between the lines: at least our ability to inhabit it comfortably, since of course the piece of rock will be just fine no matter what we do). No, age is obviously not the only difference between old technologies and new technologies. Age is the difference between an old hand axe made out of stone and a new hand axe made out of stone. The difference between an old hand axe made out of stone and an iPhone 15 goes… umm… a bit deeper.
- yowzadave 3y ago
  > every inch is covered with intricate and interconnected systems already The intricate and interconnected systems are what is required to make Earth habitable! If you wanted to live on Mars, you'd have to replicate the same complexity synthetically. Hopefully we can learn to treat the Earth with the same care that you'd treat the oxygen production system for your Martian bubble.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    Yes, but on Earth you have the option of being a bastard who pushes your problems onto other systems. On Mars you have no choice but to develop closed circular systems. It's harder to engineer but harder to sin, too. I have high hopes that we will figure out the engineering. I have low hopes that we will figure out how to systematically avoid temptation. I think space exploration is the best way to figure out circular systems at scale, and hopefully those lessons can be backported.
malux85 3y ago
I agree that this research is quite a bit more trendy than practical, for example, as someone who works in Catalysis, I'm not super sure that it is useful to limit the search for catalysts to materials available on Mars, when materials on earth give you so much greater search space, and catalysts do not get consumed with their use, so transporting them there is an O(1) cost. HOWEVER, I am very optimistic about upcoming technology in green chemistry, For example our retrosynthesis models are finding molecular pathways that are much more green - I have one project for example that is removing dependence on oil using a chemical pathway that we found that uses a molecule thats easily harvested from discarded orange peels. I think a lot of the past in chemistry (1800 -> 1940-50s) was done with little regard to the environment but many places are much more concious of it now. I would be hesitant to be critical of the current state of things, which is a product of the past, as a measure of current innovation, I think there's a logical error there.
neontomo 3y ago
I think you're underestimating the value of lofty research. I'm not a scientist, but I can imagine a few positive scenarios: - this method or a similar one being used on earth to produce oxygen (if we ever need to) - these AI method being applied in other fields - solving earth-problems here and now > Cars, fossil fuel use, massive cities, most people wasting away as drones for global corporations. These are some grim examples, but we are also using technology for good. We have a lot of work ahead of us in medicine and mental health, and AI has the potential to liberate people from chronic pain, mental decline, genetic diseases and generally just living happier and healthier. Maybe your quarrel is more with capitalism than technology, we would be drones for global corporations in some way or another even with pen and paper.
outworlder 3y ago
> Instead of investing in this sort of research, we should invest more money in protecting oceans and habitats and living sustainably. We can and should do both. Remember, you can't just take an astronaut and ask them to farm crops. I mean, you can, but that's not the best use of resources. If we want to use our talent pool appropriately, we need to invest in several different areas. > The problem behind this sort of technology is that it's just an intellectual exercise that is fun for researchers and is trendy because it's about AI, but I sincerely doubt it will contribute any good to the world. That's what's always been said about any sort of research that doesn't immediately produces results. Lasers were at some point considered a novelty with zero practical application. Look at what we are now, there's a fiber optic cable right at my home (that's probably using LEDs instead of laser diodes; LEDs were another once very theoretical area of research). Even Einstein's work was completely theoretical with no know practical applications... for a time. Research has a way of bleeding through other fields. Many technologies that are required to colonize Mars are also useful right here.
- BenjiWiebe 3y ago
  If it's single mode fiber (and it probably is), it's using lasers.

jjoonathan 3y ago

> I don't have much hope for Mars, considering we can't even take care of this planet The hard part of taking care of this planet is that every inch is covered with intricate and interconnected systems already. Almost anything you do is guaranteed to have significant side effects and the effort required to mitigate them is extreme. In space this is much less of a problem, comparatively speaking.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
No, the hard part of taking care of this planet is that we keep chasing after a lifestyle that is farther and farther away from nature. It's a choice we've made, not something intrinsic to the world.
- ghufran_syed 3y ago
  Dying of tetanus after a cut, or dying in childbirth is pretty natural - and electricity, computers and the internet are pretty unnatural. I'm glad I live in an "unnatural" time and place
- feoren 3y ago
  We can have nice things and also take care of the planet. If your suggested solution to climate change is that we all wear loincloths and live out in the trees, foraging for a paleo diet, then your suggestion is going to be immediately ignored by everyone. There's no point in even suggesting trying to return to pre-industrial times, especially since we very clearly do not need to. Climate change is a massive engineering and social problem, but somehow reverting to pre-industrial times is an order of magnitude harder on both fronts. And pointless.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    I'm not suggesting returning to pre-industrial times, but rather slowing down the development of technology and getting rid of some technology.
- FredPret 3y ago
  But you are free to peace out, put your phone down, and go live in a cave if you want... at any point
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Which obviously won't rescue you from the negative consequences of everyone around you choosing to pump combusted fossil fuels into the air you breathe. All the same costs and none of the benefits: what a pitch!
    - FredPret 3y ago
      Ah, so we ALL have to go back to the caves with you, for your sake. Got it.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Well, no, not me. I didn't make that argument to begin with, I was just pointing out how nonsensical your counterargument was. Yeah, if mass production and mass consumption is causing the problem, distributed across the commons, then it's pretty obvious that an individual choosing to "opt out" isn't going to solve the problem.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Parent wanted to be "closer to nature", my solution would work perfectly for him. By the way, as creatures that evolved into a world already engaged in tool use and cooking on camp fires, we are fundamentally technological. That smartphone is as natural as a shrub. It's just new, that's the only difference.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        > the hard part of taking care of this planet is… GP’s motive is to take care of the planet (and reading between the lines: at least our ability to inhabit it comfortably, since of course the piece of rock will be just fine no matter what we do). No, age is obviously not the only difference between old technologies and new technologies. Age is the difference between an old hand axe made out of stone and a new hand axe made out of stone. The difference between an old hand axe made out of stone and an iPhone 15 goes… umm… a bit deeper.
yowzadave 3y ago
> every inch is covered with intricate and interconnected systems already The intricate and interconnected systems are what is required to make Earth habitable! If you wanted to live on Mars, you'd have to replicate the same complexity synthetically. Hopefully we can learn to treat the Earth with the same care that you'd treat the oxygen production system for your Martian bubble.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Yes, but on Earth you have the option of being a bastard who pushes your problems onto other systems. On Mars you have no choice but to develop closed circular systems. It's harder to engineer but harder to sin, too. I have high hopes that we will figure out the engineering. I have low hopes that we will figure out how to systematically avoid temptation. I think space exploration is the best way to figure out circular systems at scale, and hopefully those lessons can be backported.

malux85 3y ago

I agree that this research is quite a bit more trendy than practical, for example, as someone who works in Catalysis, I'm not super sure that it is useful to limit the search for catalysts to materials available on Mars, when materials on earth give you so much greater search space, and catalysts do not get consumed with their use, so transporting them there is an O(1) cost. HOWEVER, I am very optimistic about upcoming technology in green chemistry, For example our retrosynthesis models are finding molecular pathways that are much more green - I have one project for example that is removing dependence on oil using a chemical pathway that we found that uses a molecule thats easily harvested from discarded orange peels. I think a lot of the past in chemistry (1800 -> 1940-50s) was done with little regard to the environment but many places are much more concious of it now. I would be hesitant to be critical of the current state of things, which is a product of the past, as a measure of current innovation, I think there's a logical error there.

neontomo 3y ago

I think you're underestimating the value of lofty research. I'm not a scientist, but I can imagine a few positive scenarios: - this method or a similar one being used on earth to produce oxygen (if we ever need to) - these AI method being applied in other fields - solving earth-problems here and now > Cars, fossil fuel use, massive cities, most people wasting away as drones for global corporations. These are some grim examples, but we are also using technology for good. We have a lot of work ahead of us in medicine and mental health, and AI has the potential to liberate people from chronic pain, mental decline, genetic diseases and generally just living happier and healthier. Maybe your quarrel is more with capitalism than technology, we would be drones for global corporations in some way or another even with pen and paper.

outworlder 3y ago

> Instead of investing in this sort of research, we should invest more money in protecting oceans and habitats and living sustainably. We can and should do both. Remember, you can't just take an astronaut and ask them to farm crops. I mean, you can, but that's not the best use of resources. If we want to use our talent pool appropriately, we need to invest in several different areas. > The problem behind this sort of technology is that it's just an intellectual exercise that is fun for researchers and is trendy because it's about AI, but I sincerely doubt it will contribute any good to the world. That's what's always been said about any sort of research that doesn't immediately produces results. Lasers were at some point considered a novelty with zero practical application. Look at what we are now, there's a fiber optic cable right at my home (that's probably using LEDs instead of laser diodes; LEDs were another once very theoretical area of research). Even Einstein's work was completely theoretical with no know practical applications... for a time. Research has a way of bleeding through other fields. Many technologies that are required to colonize Mars are also useful right here.

BenjiWiebe 3y ago
If it's single mode fiber (and it probably is), it's using lasers.