4 ms·

> Anything that industries have proven that they can’t be trusted to carry out here on Earth without wrecking things in the process. It’s not just financial cos

> Anything that industries have proven that they can’t be trusted to carry out here on Earth without wrecking things in the process. It’s not just financial costs but associated externalities as well. Again... like what? "Assume we have massive economies already inhabiting other planets" is... again... simply asserting your conclusion. > We’re pretty close if... You expect colonizing the Moon or Mars to be easier than solving heat islands and air conditioning? I was asking for evidence that having frontiers to explore (besides the vast frontiers left on earth including the ocean) are some meaningful stabilizing force for society. > The best results come from investing across as wide of a spread of fields as possible, leaving nothing ignored. Okay then why wouldn't we take the vast sums spent on space travel and spread it to the thousands of far less-funded fields of scientific development?

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
> Again... like what? Pick any of the industries that’ve repeatedly gotten headlines about being caught polluting. > "Assume we have massive economies already inhabiting other planets" is... again... simply asserting your conclusion. Well I mean if you focus on the transitionary phase of anything expensive, it looks difficult to justify and this is no exception. > You expect colonizing the Moon or Mars to be easier than solving heat islands and air conditioning? No, but I’m not posing one as an alternative or exclusive to the other. > I was asking for evidence that having frontiers to explore (besides the vast frontiers left on earth including the ocean) are some meaningful stabilizing force for society. Frontiers as in new places to settle, not just explore. While I guess it’s technically possible to settle the bottom of the ocean I don’t think very many groups or individuals would find the prospect all that appealing. This kind of frontier is stabilizing because when people become dissatisfied or frustrated with the state of things where they live, they can band together with likeminded, stake a claim, and shape their own fate to a greater degree than would otherwise be possible. This hasn’t been possible for a long time now. > Okay then why wouldn't we take the vast sums spent on space travel and spread it to the thousands of far less-funded fields of scientific development? Because then you’d unnecessarily be letting an entire wing of science atrophy when those other less -funded fields could instead easily be funded by cleaning up waste.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  100% of the industries that've repeatedly gotten headlines about being caught polluting continue to profitably operate on earth without spending billions of dollars to put infrastructure into space and adding hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to every production run. It would obviously be far, far easier to hermetically seal all of these plants and scrub the output and, if you really want to (but don't need to, obviously) you can launch the exhaust into the sun. All would be several orders of magnitude cheaper than building factories in outer space. > Well I mean if you focus on the transitionary phase of anything expensive, it looks difficult to justify and this is no exception. No. The majority of things we end up actually doing, we do because there is clear value on the other side of the activation energy. We're both looking at a wall of activation energy, I'm asking you what's on the other side, and your answer is effectively "the other side." > No, but I’m not posing one as an alternative or exclusive to the other. ... but markets do. If governments start caring about heat islands or air conditioning, the reasonable solution is not colonizing outer space. Obviously. > This kind of frontier is stabilizing because... I am once again asking for evidence of this claim. > Because then you’d unnecessarily be letting an entire wing of science atrophy The only reason you see it this way instead of right-sizing space investment and preventing other fields from atrophying is because, surprise, you've already concluded space travel is super important -- and for reasons that you cannot articulate.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    > I am once again asking for evidence of this claim. It’s a theory based on the effects frontiers have tended to have on society in the past. For frontiers beyond Earth’s orbit specifically, presenting evidence is impossible because it’s not something we’ve done. Either way, I think it’s a good thing to have somewhere for people who feel tired and defeated as well as those looking to build something for themselves to go. > The only reason you see it this way instead of right-sizing space investment and preventing other fields from atrophying is because, surprise, you've already concluded space travel is super important -- and for reasons that you cannot articulate. I’m not opposed to “right sizing” crewed space investments as long as it doesn’t mean sidelining it to the point of being stuck in a 90s-esque state of dinking around in low Earth orbit forever. I’m not saying to throw everything we have at it and make it all happen ASAP. I’m aware it’s something that will take a long time, and that’s exacerbated by cost. Start small and grow over time. That’s fine. Just keep it moving forward at a steady pace, that’s all I really want.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

> Again... like what? Pick any of the industries that’ve repeatedly gotten headlines about being caught polluting. > "Assume we have massive economies already inhabiting other planets" is... again... simply asserting your conclusion. Well I mean if you focus on the transitionary phase of anything expensive, it looks difficult to justify and this is no exception. > You expect colonizing the Moon or Mars to be easier than solving heat islands and air conditioning? No, but I’m not posing one as an alternative or exclusive to the other. > I was asking for evidence that having frontiers to explore (besides the vast frontiers left on earth including the ocean) are some meaningful stabilizing force for society. Frontiers as in new places to settle, not just explore. While I guess it’s technically possible to settle the bottom of the ocean I don’t think very many groups or individuals would find the prospect all that appealing. This kind of frontier is stabilizing because when people become dissatisfied or frustrated with the state of things where they live, they can band together with likeminded, stake a claim, and shape their own fate to a greater degree than would otherwise be possible. This hasn’t been possible for a long time now. > Okay then why wouldn't we take the vast sums spent on space travel and spread it to the thousands of far less-funded fields of scientific development? Because then you’d unnecessarily be letting an entire wing of science atrophy when those other less -funded fields could instead easily be funded by cleaning up waste.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
100% of the industries that've repeatedly gotten headlines about being caught polluting continue to profitably operate on earth without spending billions of dollars to put infrastructure into space and adding hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to every production run. It would obviously be far, far easier to hermetically seal all of these plants and scrub the output and, if you really want to (but don't need to, obviously) you can launch the exhaust into the sun. All would be several orders of magnitude cheaper than building factories in outer space. > Well I mean if you focus on the transitionary phase of anything expensive, it looks difficult to justify and this is no exception. No. The majority of things we end up actually doing, we do because there is clear value on the other side of the activation energy. We're both looking at a wall of activation energy, I'm asking you what's on the other side, and your answer is effectively "the other side." > No, but I’m not posing one as an alternative or exclusive to the other. ... but markets do. If governments start caring about heat islands or air conditioning, the reasonable solution is not colonizing outer space. Obviously. > This kind of frontier is stabilizing because... I am once again asking for evidence of this claim. > Because then you’d unnecessarily be letting an entire wing of science atrophy The only reason you see it this way instead of right-sizing space investment and preventing other fields from atrophying is because, surprise, you've already concluded space travel is super important -- and for reasons that you cannot articulate.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  > I am once again asking for evidence of this claim. It’s a theory based on the effects frontiers have tended to have on society in the past. For frontiers beyond Earth’s orbit specifically, presenting evidence is impossible because it’s not something we’ve done. Either way, I think it’s a good thing to have somewhere for people who feel tired and defeated as well as those looking to build something for themselves to go. > The only reason you see it this way instead of right-sizing space investment and preventing other fields from atrophying is because, surprise, you've already concluded space travel is super important -- and for reasons that you cannot articulate. I’m not opposed to “right sizing” crewed space investments as long as it doesn’t mean sidelining it to the point of being stuck in a 90s-esque state of dinking around in low Earth orbit forever. I’m not saying to throw everything we have at it and make it all happen ASAP. I’m aware it’s something that will take a long time, and that’s exacerbated by cost. Start small and grow over time. That’s fine. Just keep it moving forward at a steady pace, that’s all I really want.