4 ms·

Additionally, as wonderful as NASA’s robotic missions are (we should do way more), they don’t move the needle nearly as much in terms of long-term impact on our

Additionally, as wonderful as NASA’s robotic missions are (we should do way more), they don’t move the needle nearly as much in terms of long-term impact on our species as mastering crewed spaceflight (and eventually, indefinite off-world inhabitation) does. The tree of possibilities in a timeline where humans live on the surfaces of other bodies and in permanently spacebourne crafts in significant numbers is infinitely larger than the timeline in which we do not. It’s an endeavor with an extremely long timeline of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. Arguably, the things most worth doing are those with this level of potential impact, with much of what we obsess over in the short term comparatively being embarrassingly myopic bikeshedding. One must avoid leaning too far into this obviously — there are things that truly must be addressed in the short term and cannot be ignored, but the outcome of staring at your feet is just as likely to be catastrophic as staring only at the horizon is. Both can lead you to walk off the edge of a cliff.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> but the outcome of staring at your feet is just as likely to be catastrophic as staring only at the horizon is Can you list which risks you believe are mitigated by space travel?
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  The risk is never developing the ability because it never became politically beneficial to do so or never judged to be worth it in the short term and in the worst case scenario losing our chance to do it altogether (there’s nothing guaranteeing that we’ll always have our current ability to escape Earth’s gravity well or even get into orbit). We’ll never get good at things we don’t do and the related technology doesn’t just develop itself. Without intentional efforts to push the space forward, it’ll forever be stuck in limbo.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    This is only a problem if one already accepts your premise that space travel is important.
    - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
      As noted before, it’s less about the ability itself and more about the things it enables further down the line. The cultural and scientific output by a far-future version of humanity that spans the solar system and beyond will absolutely dwarf that of a future where we’ve allowed ourselves to become root-bound on earth, and accordingly it’s much more likely to unlock the mysteries of the universe and figure out better ways to live. When I think of that, precluding any of it as a possibility feels borderline malicious and negligent. I accept that this is something that depends on an individual’s values, though. Many don’t care about anything that won’t impact them personally while they’re still alive, and in some ways that’s valid, if frustrating.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        But I asked what does it enable. And no, you’ve gotten my value system wrong. I’m all for investing in both the near and far future, but there needs to be a pretty clear and believable hypothesis as to what that investment will yield. Space travel is valuable because it will yield space travel is totally unconvincing!
        cosmic_cheese 1y ago
        I thought it was explained well enough in the previous reply, but to break it down: The ability to live on other planets and in freefloating crafts does a few things. First, it cracks open access to vast amounts of resources to support populations and allows many environmentally detrimental processes to be moved away from Earth. Second, it gives infinite space to expand into. Third, it opens up a permanently available frontier for the most resetless individuals to pursue, acting as a societal pressure release valve that enhances stability. More people means more artists, philosphers, scientists, researchers, etc, which naturally means both a greater quantity and wider variety of art and science being pursued, meaning more ideas and more problems solved. By contrast, staying bound to Earth puts a hard cap on everything (especially if sustainability, which necessitates a much more limited existence, is a goal). Hopefully somebody else can express it more eloquently, but that’s the general idea.
- singleshot_ 1y ago
  The inability to move through space comes to mind, which would immediately become a problem worth solving if one considers the possibility of a serious situation in the space where we are now, or even the space we might occupy in the future.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    The risks that we need to pour massive amounts of capital and human capital into is: The risk that risks might emerge?
WalterBright 1y ago
> we should do way more Absolutely. NASA's focus on one-off probes is the most ineffective and inefficient way possible. We now have cheap launch capability, and once a probe is designed multiple copies can be made cheaply. Just think if we launched 10 JWST telescopes instead of just 1.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

> but the outcome of staring at your feet is just as likely to be catastrophic as staring only at the horizon is Can you list which risks you believe are mitigated by space travel?

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
The risk is never developing the ability because it never became politically beneficial to do so or never judged to be worth it in the short term and in the worst case scenario losing our chance to do it altogether (there’s nothing guaranteeing that we’ll always have our current ability to escape Earth’s gravity well or even get into orbit). We’ll never get good at things we don’t do and the related technology doesn’t just develop itself. Without intentional efforts to push the space forward, it’ll forever be stuck in limbo.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  This is only a problem if one already accepts your premise that space travel is important.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    As noted before, it’s less about the ability itself and more about the things it enables further down the line. The cultural and scientific output by a far-future version of humanity that spans the solar system and beyond will absolutely dwarf that of a future where we’ve allowed ourselves to become root-bound on earth, and accordingly it’s much more likely to unlock the mysteries of the universe and figure out better ways to live. When I think of that, precluding any of it as a possibility feels borderline malicious and negligent. I accept that this is something that depends on an individual’s values, though. Many don’t care about anything that won’t impact them personally while they’re still alive, and in some ways that’s valid, if frustrating.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      But I asked what does it enable. And no, you’ve gotten my value system wrong. I’m all for investing in both the near and far future, but there needs to be a pretty clear and believable hypothesis as to what that investment will yield. Space travel is valuable because it will yield space travel is totally unconvincing!
      - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
        I thought it was explained well enough in the previous reply, but to break it down: The ability to live on other planets and in freefloating crafts does a few things. First, it cracks open access to vast amounts of resources to support populations and allows many environmentally detrimental processes to be moved away from Earth. Second, it gives infinite space to expand into. Third, it opens up a permanently available frontier for the most resetless individuals to pursue, acting as a societal pressure release valve that enhances stability. More people means more artists, philosphers, scientists, researchers, etc, which naturally means both a greater quantity and wider variety of art and science being pursued, meaning more ideas and more problems solved. By contrast, staying bound to Earth puts a hard cap on everything (especially if sustainability, which necessitates a much more limited existence, is a goal). Hopefully somebody else can express it more eloquently, but that’s the general idea.
singleshot_ 1y ago
The inability to move through space comes to mind, which would immediately become a problem worth solving if one considers the possibility of a serious situation in the space where we are now, or even the space we might occupy in the future.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  The risks that we need to pour massive amounts of capital and human capital into is: The risk that risks might emerge?

WalterBright 1y ago

> we should do way more Absolutely. NASA's focus on one-off probes is the most ineffective and inefficient way possible. We now have cheap launch capability, and once a probe is designed multiple copies can be made cheaply. Just think if we launched 10 JWST telescopes instead of just 1.