7 ms·

That was unexpectedly charming. Something hinted at, here, and something I've only recently come to accept, is that we - we humans - are Earth. I mean, literal

That was unexpectedly charming. Something hinted at, here, and something I've only recently come to accept, is that we - we humans - are Earth. I mean, literally, we're systems of systems composed of stuff that's Earth stuff. And of course many interlocking systems besides, all made of the same stuff. Separate a portion of the larger system, and the component will not retain the original's complexity - it will lose complexity to entropy, and revert to the mean. Along those same lines, imagine, just for a second, a completely separated other Earth, and the systems interlocked inside it. Now imagine those, mixing with ours, all those interlocking systems, interfering, constructively and deconstructively. There's only one way that shakes out[1]. It's not great. I'm not saying interstellar voyaging is impossible. I just think it's impossible for us, as human animals, as Earth systems. But Earth systems are not the only systems that exist. Our technological systems have a leg up, in that they can be developed on a substrate of understanding beyond just the crust of the one planet. Technological systems have better messaging between systems, and they can make at least an attempt at centralized control. A technological surrogate will be the one to experience other suns. Something that remembers us, and maybe remembers us well enough it can pretend to be human occasionally. I suppose that sounds nice, in the same way the traditional blue-sky-golden-gate-fluffy-cloud-big-bearded-old-chap afterlife sounds nice. But God, it also sounds patronizing as all hell. Just put me in the ground so I can help the garden. See, as I get older, watched things die and grow, I've come to realize: the afterlife quantifiably exists . . but you don't get to be selfish about it. [1] Not counting technological solutions, like genetic engineering and, failing that, the magical realm of nanowhatever, although I suspect nanowhatsit will act an awful lot like living systems, which are of course their own sort of nanothingy

krisoft 3y ago
This is a bunch of magical thinking. > I just think it's impossible for us You think whatever you want but your reasoning is not convincing. What makes technology not of Earth? It is “just systems of systems composed of stuff that's Earth stuff“.
- mxkopy 3y ago
  Is it possible to even approximate a universal/perfect insulator? If not, then there will always be some situation in the universe that will have some effect on a static entity, unless it stops being static by adapting. Now, in terms of human bodies, these adaptations may be quite fundamental (i.e. on a genetic level)
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    Adaptation is just another word for "complexity breeds complexity," which is just more words for "entropy," which is just another description of all fading to static white noise background radiation, until it all fades into the heat death of the universe. The question is whether you choose to resist entropy and slow down, or embrace entropy and burn bright. Whichever path you choose, make the most of it my friends!
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  "Earth stuff" was bad phrasing on my part. The actual dichotomy is "naturally evolved systems" versus "designed systems". I might be an optimist, but I DO think designed systems can self-sustain in space. Not today- the tech isn't there yet - but soon. However, naturally evolved systems - like humans, non-bioengineered humans - I don't think will make it past a few generations, or, if you move a HUGE generation ship, a few thousand years. But it's always going to have a "use by" date without designed systems integrating with the naturally evolved systems. When it comes to ALIEN natural systems, all bets are off. Who the hell knows what happens when we interact with that - even super-duper-ultra-tech designed systems might not be able to correct in time if two completely alien biologies interact destructively. Curious though: what else was "magical thinking"? That's something I take pretty seriously - unless I'm doing it recreationally, which I am not - so I don't want to leave it hanging out for the universe to see.
tomrod 3y ago
Cybernetics/transhumanism (merging tech tooling and human biology) are how I envision us going to the stars. I hope consciousness is transferrable.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  My cells have changed over enough to say with some degree of assurance that, Ship of Theseus style, consciousness is indeed quite transferable, but at the same time, you will never be the same person today that you were yesterday.
wombatpm 3y ago
I’d be happy if we just start with long term orbitals. Build structures in space nearby (say L5) and try obtain self sufficiency. Then build more and move them farther out. Once you can survive in the Oort Cloud, interstellar travel becomes just a matter of time. Any dreams of small ships and small populations colonizing planets are just dreams. Unless we develop magic replication technology that takes raw elements and builds compounds an atom at a time.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Oh God the hubris of humans. Here's an idea: how about we start with a (at least seemingly) much smaller task: can we even try to genuinely be concerned about the (physically) preventable deaths of millions of people each year? And note, I'm not even talking about doing something about it, I am deliberately setting the bar only at trying(!) to be concerned (though: genuine concern). Baby steps.
  - mr_toad 3y ago
    Even if you re-directed all resources, all leisure, everything beyond bare minimum of survival into keeping as many people possible alive as long as possible, everyone will still die. So who’s to decide what we should sacrifice to keep others alive?
    - kombookcha 3y ago
      The above poster specifically wrote "physically preventable", so as an advocate for mass human sacrifice, how many do you think it'll take to make an experimental bouncy castle in space? Do you envision yourself as more of an Acceptable Human Sacrifice type, or Guy Who Enjoys The Bouncy Castle type?
      - M95D 3y ago
        "Physically preventable" is a moving target. The more resources are invested in preventing currently preventable deaths, the more farther away the target moves, because more and more causes of death become preventable. So, this is a false argument. There's no preventing all preventable deaths. Let me give you a different argument: what would it take to prevent absolutely ALL car-related deaths? Before you answer, be aware that even ambulances that mostly save lives sometimes cause deadly accidents. How many deaths would be prevented in the long term (let's take 2000 years, equal time period since Roman Empire until today) if we choose to go to space and accept a big increase in death risks for those pioneers, instead of preventing deaths on earth? How about this argument: How many improvements in medicine that make those deaths preventable today came from United States, Canada, South America or were funded by those states? If sailors from the middle ages didn't risk their lives to cross the ocean and discover America, would we have today's medicine, 500 years later? How many lives would have been lost without it?

krisoft 3y ago

This is a bunch of magical thinking. > I just think it's impossible for us You think whatever you want but your reasoning is not convincing. What makes technology not of Earth? It is “just systems of systems composed of stuff that's Earth stuff“.

mxkopy 3y ago
Is it possible to even approximate a universal/perfect insulator? If not, then there will always be some situation in the universe that will have some effect on a static entity, unless it stops being static by adapting. Now, in terms of human bodies, these adaptations may be quite fundamental (i.e. on a genetic level)
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  Adaptation is just another word for "complexity breeds complexity," which is just more words for "entropy," which is just another description of all fading to static white noise background radiation, until it all fades into the heat death of the universe. The question is whether you choose to resist entropy and slow down, or embrace entropy and burn bright. Whichever path you choose, make the most of it my friends!
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
"Earth stuff" was bad phrasing on my part. The actual dichotomy is "naturally evolved systems" versus "designed systems". I might be an optimist, but I DO think designed systems can self-sustain in space. Not today- the tech isn't there yet - but soon. However, naturally evolved systems - like humans, non-bioengineered humans - I don't think will make it past a few generations, or, if you move a HUGE generation ship, a few thousand years. But it's always going to have a "use by" date without designed systems integrating with the naturally evolved systems. When it comes to ALIEN natural systems, all bets are off. Who the hell knows what happens when we interact with that - even super-duper-ultra-tech designed systems might not be able to correct in time if two completely alien biologies interact destructively. Curious though: what else was "magical thinking"? That's something I take pretty seriously - unless I'm doing it recreationally, which I am not - so I don't want to leave it hanging out for the universe to see.

tomrod 3y ago

Cybernetics/transhumanism (merging tech tooling and human biology) are how I envision us going to the stars. I hope consciousness is transferrable.

IggleSniggle 3y ago
My cells have changed over enough to say with some degree of assurance that, Ship of Theseus style, consciousness is indeed quite transferable, but at the same time, you will never be the same person today that you were yesterday.

wombatpm 3y ago

I’d be happy if we just start with long term orbitals. Build structures in space nearby (say L5) and try obtain self sufficiency. Then build more and move them farther out. Once you can survive in the Oort Cloud, interstellar travel becomes just a matter of time. Any dreams of small ships and small populations colonizing planets are just dreams. Unless we develop magic replication technology that takes raw elements and builds compounds an atom at a time.

mistermann 3y ago
Oh God the hubris of humans. Here's an idea: how about we start with a (at least seemingly) much smaller task: can we even try to genuinely be concerned about the (physically) preventable deaths of millions of people each year? And note, I'm not even talking about doing something about it, I am deliberately setting the bar only at trying(!) to be concerned (though: genuine concern). Baby steps.
- mr_toad 3y ago
  Even if you re-directed all resources, all leisure, everything beyond bare minimum of survival into keeping as many people possible alive as long as possible, everyone will still die. So who’s to decide what we should sacrifice to keep others alive?
  - kombookcha 3y ago
    The above poster specifically wrote "physically preventable", so as an advocate for mass human sacrifice, how many do you think it'll take to make an experimental bouncy castle in space? Do you envision yourself as more of an Acceptable Human Sacrifice type, or Guy Who Enjoys The Bouncy Castle type?
    - M95D 3y ago
      "Physically preventable" is a moving target. The more resources are invested in preventing currently preventable deaths, the more farther away the target moves, because more and more causes of death become preventable. So, this is a false argument. There's no preventing all preventable deaths. Let me give you a different argument: what would it take to prevent absolutely ALL car-related deaths? Before you answer, be aware that even ambulances that mostly save lives sometimes cause deadly accidents. How many deaths would be prevented in the long term (let's take 2000 years, equal time period since Roman Empire until today) if we choose to go to space and accept a big increase in death risks for those pioneers, instead of preventing deaths on earth? How about this argument: How many improvements in medicine that make those deaths preventable today came from United States, Canada, South America or were funded by those states? If sailors from the middle ages didn't risk their lives to cross the ocean and discover America, would we have today's medicine, 500 years later? How many lives would have been lost without it?