5 ms·

This model assumes that interstellar travel is profitable. There is no evidence that this is the case, even if we had Star Trek technology. If it isn't profit

by bdamm 12y ago

This model assumes that interstellar travel is profitable. There is no evidence that this is the case, even if we had Star Trek technology. If it isn't profitable, then it turns into a drain on the home planet. That isn't sustainable.

dmix 12y ago
Curious: What would make interstellar travel not possible? Do you mean for humans or machines as well?
- atom-morgan 12y ago
  Profitable. Not possible.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  At scale it would not only have to be technologically possible but also economically feasible. If you can't afford it you can't do it even if you have the tech.
- unoti 12y ago
  An interesting analysis on this topic of the feasibility of human space travel was written by Charlie Stross here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high...
gusgordon 12y ago
It is certainly profitable for a type 1 civilization to move to a type 2 civilization as long as energy consumption and population continue to naturally grow as has happened so far here. Same thing for type 2 to 3. Also, I think that decisions about space travel are not purely for economic reasons and probably in almost any advanced species there is a large amount of the population willing to pay something to explore.
darkmighty 12y ago
I think it's a good assumption. If there are systems out there marginally different from our own, and the cost to send a "new civilization builder" doesn't completely exhaust Earth, how can it not be profitable?
- kbutler 12y ago
  Time delay. You're long dead before any profits return. How much current consumption are you willing to give for speculative distant future profit for others?
  - kijin 12y ago
    That depends on the average lifespan of the species in question, as well as the stability of their civilization. If you only live 100 years and your society will be unrecognizable after 500 years, it's obviously foolish to embark on a project that will turn a profit 1000 years later. If you can live 1M years and your civilization has been more or less stable for 10M years, you can probably afford to wait 10K years for a shipment of unobtanium. It would be just like a 17th century European merchant who sends a ship to India and waits several months for it to return. Even if the average lifespan is short, some industries can be profitable across generations. Lumber is often harvested 30-50 years after planting, and I've heard of people investing in coastal redwood that would take 100+ years before they can be cut down.
    - darkmighty 12y ago
      Wow, that redwood 100+ years investment sounds interesting. Do you have a link? I have to show that to my economist friend... or save it to win an argument some time from now :)
      - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
        Given a large payoff in 100 (or more) years time for a small investment now, it doesn't seem that hard to create a financial instrument that pays out a potion of the projected profits adjusted for risk, for each year that you hold it.
danieltillett 12y ago
Profitability is not an explanation for many activities that take place here on Earth (today is one). There are many reasons that would allow non-profitable expansion to occur. If the cost is low compared to the wealth of the society and the society is not a hive mind, then some individuals within that society would undertake it purely for non-profit reasons. For example, if I could send a problem to Sirius for $1000 that would beam back pictures of system in 18 years time I would do it right now even though I am not going to make any money from the exercise. If we want to stay on the profit driven model only then it could still be profitable to send out colonising entities once the solar systems resources are fully utilised. Remote colonies could stream back computational information (say Pixar's Toy Story 42) thus increasing our wealth.
- IndianAstronaut 12y ago
  >if I could send a problem to Sirius for $1000 that would beam back pictures of system in 18 years time I would do it right now The only way that is going to happen is if a company with profit motive is willing to invest in r and d to bring down the costs. NASA is incredible, but it isn't moving towards bringing down space exploration costs.
vorg 12y ago
Making money is one measure of profitability, another is reducing risk, something businesses aren't good at measuring. If there's two star systems instead of one colonized and the risk of one star system being wiped out by catastrophe is 1 in 1 million, then the risk of 2 being wiped out is only 1 in a quadrillion. A similar logic is behind why some people want to colonize the Moon or Mars. And when something has been successfully executed once, it's a lot easier for it to be done again, whether it's colonizing the rest of the planets in the solar system or the rest of the stars in the Orion spur.
- 31reasons 12y ago
  I doubt any sane civilization wants to spread like cancer.
  - sooheon 12y ago
    I agree. That intelligent (much more so than us) beings would find the idea of littering replicating machines literally across the universe appealing doesn't make sense to me.
maaku 12y ago
Drain on the home planet? I think your model of how this would occur needs updating. Let me give you a hint: Earth represents a minuscule, tiny, not even worth counting fraction of the resources readily available in the solar system.

by bdamm 12y ago

dmix 12y ago

Curious: What would make interstellar travel not possible? Do you mean for humans or machines as well?

atom-morgan 12y ago
Profitable. Not possible.
jacquesm 12y ago
At scale it would not only have to be technologically possible but also economically feasible. If you can't afford it you can't do it even if you have the tech.
unoti 12y ago
An interesting analysis on this topic of the feasibility of human space travel was written by Charlie Stross here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high...

gusgordon 12y ago

It is certainly profitable for a type 1 civilization to move to a type 2 civilization as long as energy consumption and population continue to naturally grow as has happened so far here. Same thing for type 2 to 3. Also, I think that decisions about space travel are not purely for economic reasons and probably in almost any advanced species there is a large amount of the population willing to pay something to explore.

darkmighty 12y ago

I think it's a good assumption. If there are systems out there marginally different from our own, and the cost to send a "new civilization builder" doesn't completely exhaust Earth, how can it not be profitable?

kbutler 12y ago
Time delay. You're long dead before any profits return. How much current consumption are you willing to give for speculative distant future profit for others?
- kijin 12y ago
  That depends on the average lifespan of the species in question, as well as the stability of their civilization. If you only live 100 years and your society will be unrecognizable after 500 years, it's obviously foolish to embark on a project that will turn a profit 1000 years later. If you can live 1M years and your civilization has been more or less stable for 10M years, you can probably afford to wait 10K years for a shipment of unobtanium. It would be just like a 17th century European merchant who sends a ship to India and waits several months for it to return. Even if the average lifespan is short, some industries can be profitable across generations. Lumber is often harvested 30-50 years after planting, and I've heard of people investing in coastal redwood that would take 100+ years before they can be cut down.
  - darkmighty 12y ago
    Wow, that redwood 100+ years investment sounds interesting. Do you have a link? I have to show that to my economist friend... or save it to win an argument some time from now :)
    - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
      Given a large payoff in 100 (or more) years time for a small investment now, it doesn't seem that hard to create a financial instrument that pays out a potion of the projected profits adjusted for risk, for each year that you hold it.

danieltillett 12y ago

Profitability is not an explanation for many activities that take place here on Earth (today is one). There are many reasons that would allow non-profitable expansion to occur. If the cost is low compared to the wealth of the society and the society is not a hive mind, then some individuals within that society would undertake it purely for non-profit reasons. For example, if I could send a problem to Sirius for $1000 that would beam back pictures of system in 18 years time I would do it right now even though I am not going to make any money from the exercise. If we want to stay on the profit driven model only then it could still be profitable to send out colonising entities once the solar systems resources are fully utilised. Remote colonies could stream back computational information (say Pixar's Toy Story 42) thus increasing our wealth.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago
>if I could send a problem to Sirius for $1000 that would beam back pictures of system in 18 years time I would do it right now The only way that is going to happen is if a company with profit motive is willing to invest in r and d to bring down the costs. NASA is incredible, but it isn't moving towards bringing down space exploration costs.

vorg 12y ago

Making money is one measure of profitability, another is reducing risk, something businesses aren't good at measuring. If there's two star systems instead of one colonized and the risk of one star system being wiped out by catastrophe is 1 in 1 million, then the risk of 2 being wiped out is only 1 in a quadrillion. A similar logic is behind why some people want to colonize the Moon or Mars. And when something has been successfully executed once, it's a lot easier for it to be done again, whether it's colonizing the rest of the planets in the solar system or the rest of the stars in the Orion spur.

31reasons 12y ago
I doubt any sane civilization wants to spread like cancer.
- sooheon 12y ago
  I agree. That intelligent (much more so than us) beings would find the idea of littering replicating machines literally across the universe appealing doesn't make sense to me.

maaku 12y ago

Drain on the home planet? I think your model of how this would occur needs updating. Let me give you a hint: Earth represents a minuscule, tiny, not even worth counting fraction of the resources readily available in the solar system.