16 ms·

Phenomenal choice. While 80 years is nice- it's a blip on the timescale of history. I personally think we're a button click away from going back to the stone a

Phenomenal choice. While 80 years is nice- it's a blip on the timescale of history. I personally think we're a button click away from going back to the stone age. I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on. I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers are extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency.

walrushunter 2y ago
Yeah, we should just stop all wars. Great idea! How has nobody thought of this before???
mordae 2y ago
Stone age? Hardly. More like 18th century. I am more worried that we do not have that many attempts at rebuilding, because coal and oil are finite. OTOH a slower 2nd iteration might actually work better than this one.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  "I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on." Far more important than 18th century vs stone age debate is the fact that there are people in charge that would lead us down either path.
  - verisimi 2y ago
    > there are people in charge that would lead us down either path Must you follow?
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Would love not to. But I'm not the decider whether we head down the path of nuclear armageddon.
- bonzini 2y ago
  If we lost access to electricity, we'd be completely screwed; we can't even get drinkable water in many places without electricity. For example where I live there is water around 10-20m depth, but it's polluted (it may be usable for agriculture but not for human consumption); you'd have to dig a well over 100m below the surface.
  - generic92034 2y ago
    The standards for what is fit for human consumption might drastically change in a post-apocalyptic scenario, though.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Boil it
fifilura 2y ago
> And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers is extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency. The strict interpretation of that foreign policy is that any nuclear nation is free to invade any non-nuclear nation and abuse its citizens. Where do you draw the line? If for example an ally is invaded by a nuclear nation. Should you intervene or just call peace? Does the rule-of-law between countries have any relevance?
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  You're claiming "wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers" are not "extremely foolish" and should not "be stopped with great urgency"?
  - fifilura 2y ago
    Yes but how? Obviously the invader is not going to stop the war and say "this was foolish". So it is up to all other nations to bow down and let them have their piece of the world.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - fifilura 2y ago
        I am not talking about any conflict in particular. I am just pointing out that this is the consequence of that kind of policy. The world is not black and white. And that also gives you the right to choose what part of the grayscale you want to be, good on you!
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
        You have stated you agree that wars between nuclear powers are extremely foolish. It's difficult to say how you can stop such wars if you don't know what the war is.
dahfizz 2y ago
Yeah, this is also a big concern of mine. Nuclear weapons haven’t been used since ww2, but there also hasn’t ever been total war between two nuclear powers. The current climate in Russia and the Middle East may change that.
- matthewfelgate 2y ago
  The current situation will not lead to nuclear war.
dsign 2y ago
>> I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. This is not a joke. But every time anybody brings it up a mob shows up saying that we must make it work here on Earth, and we should all go to hell if we can't. But we only need a few madmen in power for the rest of us to not matter.
- fifilura 2y ago
  I imagine that if you can colonize other planets you can also target them with nuclear weapons. It is like saying that the solution to all problems is colonizing Antarctica.
  - Manabu-eo 2y ago
    It's much easier to intercept said nuclear weapon because instead of minutes you would have months to do it. And attacking Mars outside the few months every two years that have the most favorable transfer windows would also be much more difficult. It's a non-trivial advantage. Of course, if you have nuclear weapons already on Mars that can be remotely triggered from Earth this doesn't apply, but hopefully we can avoid that...
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Yes- but raises an interesting problem of nuclear energy. Might be very important/useful in space. The book series "The Expanse" does an amazing job of showing what a war in space would look like, and the role of nuclear energy. Interestingly, nukes become small fry compared to slinging asteroids at planets.
    - fifilura 2y ago
      TBH I think this whole discussion - that fixing Mars should be easier than fixing Earth - is some proof that a lot of hacker news commenters are already aliens from Mars.
- timeon 2y ago
  Point is that if we can not behave on Earth how can we do it in other place.
palata 2y ago
> I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. I think this is a very naive take. * We can't really live on another planet in the solar system. * Look at how far the next star is and realise that we won't get there anytime soon (probably at all). * What's the point of surviving on another planet, without any other species? * Without considering the risk of nuclear war, we are in the process of destroying life on Earth. The resources we put on that project are mostly wasted. We should try to live on Earth, I hear it's a nice place.
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  I don't personally believe we should colonize other heavenly bodies because of a potential nuclear apocalypse, but the negation of that is no reason to abandon space travel either. Every time we have launched a mission into deep space we have learnt more as a species about what makes Earth 'tick'. We can also do a lot without actual space travel - maybe if more people had heeded the observations of the greenhouse effect on Venus in the 60s, for instance, we would have less of an issue cleaning up our own atmosphere now. I'm not confident that our place is in the stars, but it would be narrow-minded not to give living out there a go.
  - palata 2y ago
    > maybe if more people had heeded the observations of the greenhouse effect on Venus in the 60s We know pretty well what's happening on Earth and we have for decades. It's not like we just realised 5 years ago that we have a problem. We have not done anything (and we still aren't), but we knew, that's for sure. > I'm not confident that our place is in the stars, but it would be narrow-minded not to give living out there a go. In terms of survival as a species, anything that's not about solving our biodiversity and climate problems is a loss of time. I'm fine if some people work on it (just like it's good to have people working in art), but a lot of those researchers and engineers working on space exploration may actually be more useful to the species if they worked on the actual problems we have.
    - nyc_data_geek1 2y ago
mihaaly 2y ago
Humanity en masse are superficial ignorant pretentious idiots. They are so pretentious that they pretend they are not pretentious and they care a lot ('It is utmost important for us [arbitrary lie here]'). Except Trump kind of people. They honestly and proudly announce that they give no fuck about anyone but themselves.
- psychoslave 2y ago
  >Humanity en masse are superficial ignorant pretentious idiots. Oh I see how I can perfectly fit this role sure, I tell you so as the most humble entity that universe ever spawned. It was of the outmost importance for me to deliver this lie: I don't care about anyone, humanity can go extinct, self included, and it doesn't trigger any emotion in me.
throw0101c 2y ago
> I personally think we're a button click away from going back to the stone age. One reason to use less oil now is to perhaps preserve it in case we need to 'reboot' civilization in the future in case of a future cataclysm. We were only able to reach beyond (near-)subsistence living because of cheap energy, first coal and later petroleum. All the easily accessible stuff is now kind of gone, so if there's another collapse (which may be more likely to be global in nature: see pandemics), then depending on how much knowledge we lose it could be hard to get back to the say level without the previously cheap/easy energy. In past collapses (Europe: Western Roman Empire, Black Death) we were able to eventually recover because we at a simply technological level that could keep going even with the loss of a lot of knowledge. > I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. I think this will be impossible given advanced countries can't even be self-sufficient on Earth. Is there oil on those heavenly bodies? Probably no, so you're importing your lubricants and seals/o-rings. Advanced fabs? No? Well you're importing your electronics. What kind of silica is there, because if you don't have the right kind of sand, you're mot making your own solar panels. How much radioactive material (uranium, plutonium, thorium, etc) is around if you want to try nuclear power.
- lutorm 2y ago
  There is so much coal... I wouldn't worry about running out of that.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > There is so much coal... I wouldn't worry about running out of that. It's not just about quantity, but accessibility: early coal was on the surface in the UK, and when they depleted that they had to create pumps to drain the mines—which led to all sorts of discoveries when it comes to pressure, which got translated into steam engine advancements. In the past you could almost literally stick a straw in the ground in parts of the US and suck oil out of the ground. You have to go further afield in many cases now.
- palata 2y ago
  > I think this will be impossible given advanced countries can't even be self-sufficient on Earth. And that's only after you've passed the fact that it's impossible for us to reach the next star.
EasyMark 2y ago
So like usual I offer up "what's your alternative" ? Is it to ignore Russian's invasion of countries? Ignore Iran's chaos it wants to sew constantly in the Middle East? It's easy to say "just be peaceful" but history shows that countries are not peaceful towards one another, they constantly want to take other's resources, or force their way of life on others, or settle some vague issue they have with another country (or people there). I think most people would love if countries would just stop attacking others. right now we don't have the tech to live on "other bodies", that is pie in the sky. I would love if nation-states just stopped the nonsense and were good to one another and their inhabitants, but that has never been the case.
- quotz 2y ago
  Irans wants to sew chaos? The whole conflict with Iran started because the US and UK installed a puppet government (Pahlavi) so they can control the oil. After Pahlavi was ousted, the religious extreme took control, and cut ties with the west as a result. Its more like the west wanted chaos and started this whole mess
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    It's this same mentality that got us in trouble in literally all conflicts of the past 40 years. One day it's gonna get us blown up and I hope it's not over the Donbas.
- exoverito 2y ago
  The CIA was actively involved in the Maidan revolution, which sought to pull Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the EU / NATO. Obviously this is antagonistic towards Russia, especially when they have so few natural barriers to defend against invasion of their land. Look at how quickly the Wagner group reached Moscow after defecting from the Ukrainian front. If the shoe were on the other foot, and China had supported a revolution in Mexico and was setting up military bases, the American government would not take it lightly. The US would cook up some reason to wage war against Mexico as a continuation of the Monroe Doctrine. These wars are not about good and evil, as much as it's about empires and power.
tredre3 2y ago
> I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. But who will inhabit those other bodies? Humans? The same species that destroyed earth in your scenario? What makes you think that living on Mars would suddenly make everybody peaceful and enlightened?

walrushunter 2y ago

Yeah, we should just stop all wars. Great idea! How has nobody thought of this before???

mordae 2y ago

Stone age? Hardly. More like 18th century. I am more worried that we do not have that many attempts at rebuilding, because coal and oil are finite. OTOH a slower 2nd iteration might actually work better than this one.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
"I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on." Far more important than 18th century vs stone age debate is the fact that there are people in charge that would lead us down either path.
- verisimi 2y ago
  > there are people in charge that would lead us down either path Must you follow?
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    Would love not to. But I'm not the decider whether we head down the path of nuclear armageddon.
bonzini 2y ago
If we lost access to electricity, we'd be completely screwed; we can't even get drinkable water in many places without electricity. For example where I live there is water around 10-20m depth, but it's polluted (it may be usable for agriculture but not for human consumption); you'd have to dig a well over 100m below the surface.
- generic92034 2y ago
  The standards for what is fit for human consumption might drastically change in a post-apocalyptic scenario, though.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Boil it

fifilura 2y ago

> And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers is extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency. The strict interpretation of that foreign policy is that any nuclear nation is free to invade any non-nuclear nation and abuse its citizens. Where do you draw the line? If for example an ally is invaded by a nuclear nation. Should you intervene or just call peace? Does the rule-of-law between countries have any relevance?

cynicalpeace 2y ago
You're claiming "wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers" are not "extremely foolish" and should not "be stopped with great urgency"?
- fifilura 2y ago
  Yes but how? Obviously the invader is not going to stop the war and say "this was foolish". So it is up to all other nations to bow down and let them have their piece of the world.
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - fifilura 2y ago
      I am not talking about any conflict in particular. I am just pointing out that this is the consequence of that kind of policy. The world is not black and white. And that also gives you the right to choose what part of the grayscale you want to be, good on you!
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        You have stated you agree that wars between nuclear powers are extremely foolish. It's difficult to say how you can stop such wars if you don't know what the war is.

dahfizz 2y ago

Yeah, this is also a big concern of mine. Nuclear weapons haven’t been used since ww2, but there also hasn’t ever been total war between two nuclear powers. The current climate in Russia and the Middle East may change that.

matthewfelgate 2y ago
The current situation will not lead to nuclear war.

dsign 2y ago

>> I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. This is not a joke. But every time anybody brings it up a mob shows up saying that we must make it work here on Earth, and we should all go to hell if we can't. But we only need a few madmen in power for the rest of us to not matter.

fifilura 2y ago
I imagine that if you can colonize other planets you can also target them with nuclear weapons. It is like saying that the solution to all problems is colonizing Antarctica.
- Manabu-eo 2y ago
  It's much easier to intercept said nuclear weapon because instead of minutes you would have months to do it. And attacking Mars outside the few months every two years that have the most favorable transfer windows would also be much more difficult. It's a non-trivial advantage. Of course, if you have nuclear weapons already on Mars that can be remotely triggered from Earth this doesn't apply, but hopefully we can avoid that...
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    Yes- but raises an interesting problem of nuclear energy. Might be very important/useful in space. The book series "The Expanse" does an amazing job of showing what a war in space would look like, and the role of nuclear energy. Interestingly, nukes become small fry compared to slinging asteroids at planets.
  - fifilura 2y ago
    TBH I think this whole discussion - that fixing Mars should be easier than fixing Earth - is some proof that a lot of hacker news commenters are already aliens from Mars.
timeon 2y ago
Point is that if we can not behave on Earth how can we do it in other place.

palata 2y ago

> I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. I think this is a very naive take. * We can't really live on another planet in the solar system. * Look at how far the next star is and realise that we won't get there anytime soon (probably at all). * What's the point of surviving on another planet, without any other species? * Without considering the risk of nuclear war, we are in the process of destroying life on Earth. The resources we put on that project are mostly wasted. We should try to live on Earth, I hear it's a nice place.

seabass-labrax 2y ago
I don't personally believe we should colonize other heavenly bodies because of a potential nuclear apocalypse, but the negation of that is no reason to abandon space travel either. Every time we have launched a mission into deep space we have learnt more as a species about what makes Earth 'tick'. We can also do a lot without actual space travel - maybe if more people had heeded the observations of the greenhouse effect on Venus in the 60s, for instance, we would have less of an issue cleaning up our own atmosphere now. I'm not confident that our place is in the stars, but it would be narrow-minded not to give living out there a go.
- palata 2y ago
  > maybe if more people had heeded the observations of the greenhouse effect on Venus in the 60s We know pretty well what's happening on Earth and we have for decades. It's not like we just realised 5 years ago that we have a problem. We have not done anything (and we still aren't), but we knew, that's for sure. > I'm not confident that our place is in the stars, but it would be narrow-minded not to give living out there a go. In terms of survival as a species, anything that's not about solving our biodiversity and climate problems is a loss of time. I'm fine if some people work on it (just like it's good to have people working in art), but a lot of those researchers and engineers working on space exploration may actually be more useful to the species if they worked on the actual problems we have.
  - nyc_data_geek1 2y ago

mihaaly 2y ago

Humanity en masse are superficial ignorant pretentious idiots. They are so pretentious that they pretend they are not pretentious and they care a lot ('It is utmost important for us [arbitrary lie here]'). Except Trump kind of people. They honestly and proudly announce that they give no fuck about anyone but themselves.

psychoslave 2y ago
>Humanity en masse are superficial ignorant pretentious idiots. Oh I see how I can perfectly fit this role sure, I tell you so as the most humble entity that universe ever spawned. It was of the outmost importance for me to deliver this lie: I don't care about anyone, humanity can go extinct, self included, and it doesn't trigger any emotion in me.

throw0101c 2y ago

> I personally think we're a button click away from going back to the stone age. One reason to use less oil now is to perhaps preserve it in case we need to 'reboot' civilization in the future in case of a future cataclysm. We were only able to reach beyond (near-)subsistence living because of cheap energy, first coal and later petroleum. All the easily accessible stuff is now kind of gone, so if there's another collapse (which may be more likely to be global in nature: see pandemics), then depending on how much knowledge we lose it could be hard to get back to the say level without the previously cheap/easy energy. In past collapses (Europe: Western Roman Empire, Black Death) we were able to eventually recover because we at a simply technological level that could keep going even with the loss of a lot of knowledge. > I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. I think this will be impossible given advanced countries can't even be self-sufficient on Earth. Is there oil on those heavenly bodies? Probably no, so you're importing your lubricants and seals/o-rings. Advanced fabs? No? Well you're importing your electronics. What kind of silica is there, because if you don't have the right kind of sand, you're mot making your own solar panels. How much radioactive material (uranium, plutonium, thorium, etc) is around if you want to try nuclear power.

lutorm 2y ago
There is so much coal... I wouldn't worry about running out of that.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > There is so much coal... I wouldn't worry about running out of that. It's not just about quantity, but accessibility: early coal was on the surface in the UK, and when they depleted that they had to create pumps to drain the mines—which led to all sorts of discoveries when it comes to pressure, which got translated into steam engine advancements. In the past you could almost literally stick a straw in the ground in parts of the US and suck oil out of the ground. You have to go further afield in many cases now.
palata 2y ago
> I think this will be impossible given advanced countries can't even be self-sufficient on Earth. And that's only after you've passed the fact that it's impossible for us to reach the next star.

EasyMark 2y ago

So like usual I offer up "what's your alternative" ? Is it to ignore Russian's invasion of countries? Ignore Iran's chaos it wants to sew constantly in the Middle East? It's easy to say "just be peaceful" but history shows that countries are not peaceful towards one another, they constantly want to take other's resources, or force their way of life on others, or settle some vague issue they have with another country (or people there). I think most people would love if countries would just stop attacking others. right now we don't have the tech to live on "other bodies", that is pie in the sky. I would love if nation-states just stopped the nonsense and were good to one another and their inhabitants, but that has never been the case.

quotz 2y ago
Irans wants to sew chaos? The whole conflict with Iran started because the US and UK installed a puppet government (Pahlavi) so they can control the oil. After Pahlavi was ousted, the religious extreme took control, and cut ties with the west as a result. Its more like the west wanted chaos and started this whole mess
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  It's this same mentality that got us in trouble in literally all conflicts of the past 40 years. One day it's gonna get us blown up and I hope it's not over the Donbas.
exoverito 2y ago
The CIA was actively involved in the Maidan revolution, which sought to pull Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the EU / NATO. Obviously this is antagonistic towards Russia, especially when they have so few natural barriers to defend against invasion of their land. Look at how quickly the Wagner group reached Moscow after defecting from the Ukrainian front. If the shoe were on the other foot, and China had supported a revolution in Mexico and was setting up military bases, the American government would not take it lightly. The US would cook up some reason to wage war against Mexico as a continuation of the Monroe Doctrine. These wars are not about good and evil, as much as it's about empires and power.

tredre3 2y ago

> I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. But who will inhabit those other bodies? Humans? The same species that destroyed earth in your scenario? What makes you think that living on Mars would suddenly make everybody peaceful and enlightened?