4 ms·

We could also learn to live within the means of our ecology.

by hosh 2y ago

sho_hn 2y ago
This sounds like the harder problem.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  No, it's merely incredibly difficult. Sustainable living off Earth is far beyond that. Humans definitely can't leave. Humans are even less well suited to interstellar travel than they are to living at the bottom of the ocean, something they also don't do and have no idea how they could ever do. So, with tremendous effort humans could visit one of their neighbouring planets. All of these planets are terrible. Mars is by far more hostile to life than anywhere humans have even visited, let alone had a permanent settlement. But we could do it. To what end? Live here, or die here, those are your options and you should get used to it.
  - tonynator 2y ago
    >To what end? To have the species survive if anything ends all life on Earth - apparently not a priority for you but it is for those that enjoy humanity existing. Also to explore and learn more about the universe we live in. Do you truly not see value in that? Have you never left the city/state/country you were born in?
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      > To have the species survive if anything ends all life on Earth Nothing the universe has thrown at Earth in the past 3 billion years has been capable of ending all life. And nothing that could happen in the next million years seems possible of doing that either.
      - pretendscholar 2y ago
        When we say life on earth we mean human life and civilization. Prokaryotes, while alive, are not really what people mean. Yes they would survive asteroids, nukes, possibly nanobot swarms.
  - hosh 2y ago
    > No, it's merely incredibly difficult. It's difficult, but I don't think it is _that_ difficult. Ecologies, like any living systems, can self-heal and regenerate. There are practices that allows us to tap into that regenerative power as societies. They may not happen fast relative to our individual human lifespan, but 50 years is more than enough time to restore wastelands or reverse desertification. I don't have a good answer to how sustain an economy based upon mining, refining, and manufacturing things out of mineral resources. Many of us have gotten used to modern conveniences (at its own cost related to mental and emotional health, and social cohesiveness). I think what most people balk on are on the perception of having to go back to barely surviving off the land, or having to alter lifestyle. Lifestyle may have to change, but the same regenerative power of ecologies also gives us significantly more resiliency.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    >But we could do it. To what end? Why do anything at all? Who are you to dictate to others what their options are?
pretendscholar 2y ago
That wouldn't prevent one off extinction type events like asteroids. We can improve our understanding of ecology by trying to design such systems for lunar colony artificial biospheres. I do agree that we should better manage our impact on the only system that we know works.
- jonathankoren 2y ago
  This is the lamest of all excuses. It's a very unlikely for one, we haven't had an extinction asteroid in 65 million years. Detection and mapping is very good today, and they're relatively simple to deflect given even with current technology, and a long enough lead time. Obsessing about asteroid impact is just an excuse to engage in fantasy. But saying "We can improve our understanding of ecology by [designing] artificial biosphere", is just the chef's kiss of bullshittery. It's like saying, that we can understand the ocean by getting a fish bowl. Not exactly, and it certainly won't teach us anything about the actual biosphere. Instead, all you'd learn about is atmosphere scrubbers and water reclamation.
  - KoftaBob 2y ago
    > they're relatively simple to deflect given even with current technology, and a long enough lead time. and what is this simple method to deflect a large asteroid headed for Earth?
    - papercrane 2y ago
      A gravity tractor is the simplest solution with enough lead time. It's theoretical, but doesn't involve any exotic technology or materials. Essentially you have a spacecraft park itself beside an asteroid. It's gravity will minutely change the asteroids trajectory. With enough lead time that's all you need. Since you're not blowing up, or applying a large focused amount of energy to the asteroid it doesn't matter what the targets composition is. You won't break it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor
  - nordsieck 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mr_toad 2y ago
> We could also learn to live within the means of our ecology. That would be easier if we could move polluting industries off Earth.
- hosh 2y ago
  Maybe we can find alternatives besides those industries. As far as cleaning up pollutants themselves, there are some amazing work by Dr John Todd for cleaning up pollution. Two examples of his work — a system capable of breaking down DDT within 40 days. Another where he cleaned up a superfund site that had all ten of EPA’s top toxic pollutant list.

We could also learn to live within the means of our ecology.

by hosh 2y ago

We could also learn to live within the means of our ecology.

sho_hn 2y ago

This sounds like the harder problem.

tialaramex 2y ago
No, it's merely incredibly difficult. Sustainable living off Earth is far beyond that. Humans definitely can't leave. Humans are even less well suited to interstellar travel than they are to living at the bottom of the ocean, something they also don't do and have no idea how they could ever do. So, with tremendous effort humans could visit one of their neighbouring planets. All of these planets are terrible. Mars is by far more hostile to life than anywhere humans have even visited, let alone had a permanent settlement. But we could do it. To what end? Live here, or die here, those are your options and you should get used to it.
- tonynator 2y ago
  >To what end? To have the species survive if anything ends all life on Earth - apparently not a priority for you but it is for those that enjoy humanity existing. Also to explore and learn more about the universe we live in. Do you truly not see value in that? Have you never left the city/state/country you were born in?
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    > To have the species survive if anything ends all life on Earth Nothing the universe has thrown at Earth in the past 3 billion years has been capable of ending all life. And nothing that could happen in the next million years seems possible of doing that either.
    - pretendscholar 2y ago
      When we say life on earth we mean human life and civilization. Prokaryotes, while alive, are not really what people mean. Yes they would survive asteroids, nukes, possibly nanobot swarms.
- hosh 2y ago
  > No, it's merely incredibly difficult. It's difficult, but I don't think it is _that_ difficult. Ecologies, like any living systems, can self-heal and regenerate. There are practices that allows us to tap into that regenerative power as societies. They may not happen fast relative to our individual human lifespan, but 50 years is more than enough time to restore wastelands or reverse desertification. I don't have a good answer to how sustain an economy based upon mining, refining, and manufacturing things out of mineral resources. Many of us have gotten used to modern conveniences (at its own cost related to mental and emotional health, and social cohesiveness). I think what most people balk on are on the perception of having to go back to barely surviving off the land, or having to alter lifestyle. Lifestyle may have to change, but the same regenerative power of ecologies also gives us significantly more resiliency.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  >But we could do it. To what end? Why do anything at all? Who are you to dictate to others what their options are?

pretendscholar 2y ago

That wouldn't prevent one off extinction type events like asteroids. We can improve our understanding of ecology by trying to design such systems for lunar colony artificial biospheres. I do agree that we should better manage our impact on the only system that we know works.

jonathankoren 2y ago
This is the lamest of all excuses. It's a very unlikely for one, we haven't had an extinction asteroid in 65 million years. Detection and mapping is very good today, and they're relatively simple to deflect given even with current technology, and a long enough lead time. Obsessing about asteroid impact is just an excuse to engage in fantasy. But saying "We can improve our understanding of ecology by [designing] artificial biosphere", is just the chef's kiss of bullshittery. It's like saying, that we can understand the ocean by getting a fish bowl. Not exactly, and it certainly won't teach us anything about the actual biosphere. Instead, all you'd learn about is atmosphere scrubbers and water reclamation.
- KoftaBob 2y ago
  > they're relatively simple to deflect given even with current technology, and a long enough lead time. and what is this simple method to deflect a large asteroid headed for Earth?
  - papercrane 2y ago
    A gravity tractor is the simplest solution with enough lead time. It's theoretical, but doesn't involve any exotic technology or materials. Essentially you have a spacecraft park itself beside an asteroid. It's gravity will minutely change the asteroids trajectory. With enough lead time that's all you need. Since you're not blowing up, or applying a large focused amount of energy to the asteroid it doesn't matter what the targets composition is. You won't break it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor
- nordsieck 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mr_toad 2y ago

> We could also learn to live within the means of our ecology. That would be easier if we could move polluting industries off Earth.

hosh 2y ago
Maybe we can find alternatives besides those industries. As far as cleaning up pollutants themselves, there are some amazing work by Dr John Todd for cleaning up pollution. Two examples of his work — a system capable of breaking down DDT within 40 days. Another where he cleaned up a superfund site that had all ten of EPA’s top toxic pollutant list.