4 ms·

> I would find it absurd to say that we should never expect it to be viable. Well, never say never. Obviously, a manned trip to Mars is just a bunch of technic

> I would find it absurd to say that we should never expect it to be viable. Well, never say never. Obviously, a manned trip to Mars is just a bunch of technical challenges, and technical challenges can be overcome. The planned Orion spaceship, powered by a stream of H-bombs, the size of a hotel, and built from ordinary steel, has long struck me as the most realistic prospect for long-distance space-travel (they said that if you want, you could bring an ordinary barber's chair or dentist's chair on board). I can't see a Generation Ship working at all. Space travel requires personal commitment; my children can't be expected to have the same attitudes as me. Politics would destroy a Generation Ship. So I think the outer limit on space-travel is the distance you can travel before you die. That depends on velocity, but once you get into velocities comparable to c, the amounts of energy required are staggering. Getting protons moving at a fraction of c has required a huge international effort. Getting a human moving at those speeds seems simply infeasible. So I conclude that it's unreasonable to plan on travel beyond the solar system.

digging 3y ago
> I can't see a Generation Ship working at all. Hm, that's fine, but it's taking the conversation in a different direction. > Politics would destroy a Generation Ship. Social constructions are also a form of technology and politics is also a technical challenge. I don't think generation ships are impossible on social grounds.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > politics is also a technical challenge That's a remarkable claim, in view of the fact that political problems don't seem to be diminishing in the face of technical advances over 2,000 years. I don't think I've even heard of a technical formulation of political differences. Of course, an 'iron fist' is a sort of technical solution to political problems; and the classical model of a ship has a captain who commands total obedience. But even ships with authoritarian captains have suffered mutinies; arguably, an authoritarian captain makes a mutiny more likely. Are you suggesting that technology can solve political problems by psychological manipulation? If that's the deal, then I'll lead the mutiny.
  - digging 3y ago
    > Are you suggesting that technology can solve political problems by psychological manipulation? Not at all. > That's a remarkable claim I don't think so. I think it's self-evident. You're not born knowing how to interact with others socially; it is learned. There is not one single technique for persuasion, but many rhetorical techniques. Therefore it follows that any given individual can learn to become more skillful and effective at social interaction, broadly. (I'm not specifically talking about manipulating or convincing others to do something they don't want.) It also follows that people can learn new social interaction techniques from each other and build on their skills by sharing. This is a form of technology; social structures and language are tools. Social structures come in a range of complexities and types. Governments come in a range of complexities and types. Communication techniques, languages, ideas, etc. All can be built upon, adapted, and improved in effectiveness, as evidenced by the structures we've built upon the structures our ancestors have invented. For example, how do our legal codes compare to the Code of Hammurabi? Is it possible that Hammurabi could have spontaneously invented anything like the modern US penal system without building upon millennia of innovation? And if we do agree that social interactions and structures can be improved upon, then the most remarkable claim would be to say that we must have already discovered all the techniques and their limits, and cannot learn new techniques for cooperation in new environments, without any evidence.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      > You're not born knowing how to interact with others socially; it is learned. I disagree. As I've grown older, it has startled me to observe the degree to which personality is innate, or inherited. I used to believe we were born tabula rasa, but since raising children and burying my parents, I see that my earlier opinions were absurd. Do you have children?
      - digging 3y ago
        What social skills are infants born with?
        3y ago

digging 3y ago

> I can't see a Generation Ship working at all. Hm, that's fine, but it's taking the conversation in a different direction. > Politics would destroy a Generation Ship. Social constructions are also a form of technology and politics is also a technical challenge. I don't think generation ships are impossible on social grounds.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> politics is also a technical challenge That's a remarkable claim, in view of the fact that political problems don't seem to be diminishing in the face of technical advances over 2,000 years. I don't think I've even heard of a technical formulation of political differences. Of course, an 'iron fist' is a sort of technical solution to political problems; and the classical model of a ship has a captain who commands total obedience. But even ships with authoritarian captains have suffered mutinies; arguably, an authoritarian captain makes a mutiny more likely. Are you suggesting that technology can solve political problems by psychological manipulation? If that's the deal, then I'll lead the mutiny.
- digging 3y ago
  > Are you suggesting that technology can solve political problems by psychological manipulation? Not at all. > That's a remarkable claim I don't think so. I think it's self-evident. You're not born knowing how to interact with others socially; it is learned. There is not one single technique for persuasion, but many rhetorical techniques. Therefore it follows that any given individual can learn to become more skillful and effective at social interaction, broadly. (I'm not specifically talking about manipulating or convincing others to do something they don't want.) It also follows that people can learn new social interaction techniques from each other and build on their skills by sharing. This is a form of technology; social structures and language are tools. Social structures come in a range of complexities and types. Governments come in a range of complexities and types. Communication techniques, languages, ideas, etc. All can be built upon, adapted, and improved in effectiveness, as evidenced by the structures we've built upon the structures our ancestors have invented. For example, how do our legal codes compare to the Code of Hammurabi? Is it possible that Hammurabi could have spontaneously invented anything like the modern US penal system without building upon millennia of innovation? And if we do agree that social interactions and structures can be improved upon, then the most remarkable claim would be to say that we must have already discovered all the techniques and their limits, and cannot learn new techniques for cooperation in new environments, without any evidence.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > You're not born knowing how to interact with others socially; it is learned. I disagree. As I've grown older, it has startled me to observe the degree to which personality is innate, or inherited. I used to believe we were born tabula rasa, but since raising children and burying my parents, I see that my earlier opinions were absurd. Do you have children?
    - digging 3y ago
      What social skills are infants born with?
      - 3y ago