3 ms·

> The article claims that Earth will be incinerated, but we could just move Earth further from the Sun. The article isn’t trying to make science-fiction predic

by latexr 1y ago

> The article claims that Earth will be incinerated, but we could just move Earth further from the Sun. The article isn’t trying to make science-fiction predictions, it’s simply explaining how things are expected to go according to the workings of the Universe. The article also isn’t suggesting humans will go to Europa to survive, only that life could theoretically develop and persist there. We can’t even let our fellow humans live. Hatred and division is growing, and we’re ever more worshipping and giving power to destructive, selfish, science-denying, power-hungry maniacs with access to world-destroying technology. And you think there’s any chance we’ll all agree and unite to move the whole planet? It would be nonsensical for the article to even hint at entertainment that scenario in any serious capacity, and it would have been rightly dismissed by most people if it did.

kragen 1y ago
The thing people should rightly dismiss is the idea that human engineering is a minor enough consideration in predictions of the far future that it can be ignored as a sort of rounding error. The humans have already destroyed much of Earth's ozone layer, then restored it through exactly the kind of global agreement you're dismissing as unachievable. Now they've doubled the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, a change which would melt away the icecaps and raise sea levels dramatically over a few centuries if it weren't reversed. They don't have anything approaching world-destroying technology, but in a few decades they will. Undoubtedly, if there are still humans after a few hundred million years, they will disagree about exactly what orbit Earth should be in, but that doesn't mean it will stay in the same orbit until after its oceans boil dry.
- latexr 1y ago
  > The thing people should rightly dismiss is the idea that human engineering is a minor enough consideration in predictions of the far future that it can be ignored as a sort of rounding error. Which is not my argument. At all. You’re talking about if we can, I’m talking about if we will. The article—again, rightly—explains what we predict is going to happen according to the information we have. It’s trying to be a scientific-minded article, not a science-fiction article. By your token, anyone could make up any technology to contradict the article, which is not a productive discussion. > the kind of global agreement you're dismissing as unachievable. I disagree it’s the same kind of agreement. The difference in magnitude and investment is gargantuan to the point it’s another category altogether. Like a group deciding where they’ll go out to dinner VS deciding which country they’ll all move to. Both require mutual agreement for the same group to advance, but that’s where the similarities end. > Undoubtedly, if there are still humans after a few hundred million years Which is a big if. You can’t in good faith flout “just move Earth further from the Sun” as if it was something routine without considering all the very real and very big obstacles which are in our way right now, billions of years before your proposed scenario. The crux of my point is merely that your criticism of the article is unwarranted. Sure, phantasise about any any possible approaches to the problem you can think of, but acting like the article somehow failed to consider those options is what I’m disagreeing with.
  - kragen 1y ago
    I'm not making up any technology. Conservation of energy, solar power, artificial satellites, and Newtonian gravitation are not the same kind of "science fiction" as faster-than-light drives, little green men, or inevitable human extinction. What we should predict, according to the information we have right now, is that humans will be able to decide whether or not the Earth gets incinerated, unless they die off first. Yes, moving the Earth is a larger project than replacing CFCs. But the humans harness progressively larger amounts of power per capita over time, historically at the rate of about 1.2% per year. At that rate, a Dyson swarm will capture effectively all of the Sun's 48-petawatt output in six or seven hundred years, though I expect the rate to accelerate. That's over a billion times larger than the power required to move Earth to anywhere. If you were to distribute the Sun's power evenly to the world's current population, only 7 people (per generation) would need to pool their shares to achieve it. So the magnitude of investment is extremely manageable. I'm not interested in the real and very big obstacles that are in your way right now. I'm interested in which of those obstacles will remain 400 million years from now. It seems irresponsible to speculate that humanity will remain collectively suicidal for such long spans of time—if nothing else, you'd expect the collectively-suicidal subpopulations to become scarcer over time.

by latexr 1y ago

kragen 1y ago

The thing people should rightly dismiss is the idea that human engineering is a minor enough consideration in predictions of the far future that it can be ignored as a sort of rounding error. The humans have already destroyed much of Earth's ozone layer, then restored it through exactly the kind of global agreement you're dismissing as unachievable. Now they've doubled the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, a change which would melt away the icecaps and raise sea levels dramatically over a few centuries if it weren't reversed. They don't have anything approaching world-destroying technology, but in a few decades they will. Undoubtedly, if there are still humans after a few hundred million years, they will disagree about exactly what orbit Earth should be in, but that doesn't mean it will stay in the same orbit until after its oceans boil dry.

latexr 1y ago
> The thing people should rightly dismiss is the idea that human engineering is a minor enough consideration in predictions of the far future that it can be ignored as a sort of rounding error. Which is not my argument. At all. You’re talking about if we can, I’m talking about if we will. The article—again, rightly—explains what we predict is going to happen according to the information we have. It’s trying to be a scientific-minded article, not a science-fiction article. By your token, anyone could make up any technology to contradict the article, which is not a productive discussion. > the kind of global agreement you're dismissing as unachievable. I disagree it’s the same kind of agreement. The difference in magnitude and investment is gargantuan to the point it’s another category altogether. Like a group deciding where they’ll go out to dinner VS deciding which country they’ll all move to. Both require mutual agreement for the same group to advance, but that’s where the similarities end. > Undoubtedly, if there are still humans after a few hundred million years Which is a big if. You can’t in good faith flout “just move Earth further from the Sun” as if it was something routine without considering all the very real and very big obstacles which are in our way right now, billions of years before your proposed scenario. The crux of my point is merely that your criticism of the article is unwarranted. Sure, phantasise about any any possible approaches to the problem you can think of, but acting like the article somehow failed to consider those options is what I’m disagreeing with.
- kragen 1y ago
  I'm not making up any technology. Conservation of energy, solar power, artificial satellites, and Newtonian gravitation are not the same kind of "science fiction" as faster-than-light drives, little green men, or inevitable human extinction. What we should predict, according to the information we have right now, is that humans will be able to decide whether or not the Earth gets incinerated, unless they die off first. Yes, moving the Earth is a larger project than replacing CFCs. But the humans harness progressively larger amounts of power per capita over time, historically at the rate of about 1.2% per year. At that rate, a Dyson swarm will capture effectively all of the Sun's 48-petawatt output in six or seven hundred years, though I expect the rate to accelerate. That's over a billion times larger than the power required to move Earth to anywhere. If you were to distribute the Sun's power evenly to the world's current population, only 7 people (per generation) would need to pool their shares to achieve it. So the magnitude of investment is extremely manageable. I'm not interested in the real and very big obstacles that are in your way right now. I'm interested in which of those obstacles will remain 400 million years from now. It seems irresponsible to speculate that humanity will remain collectively suicidal for such long spans of time—if nothing else, you'd expect the collectively-suicidal subpopulations to become scarcer over time.