5 ms·

«"Like Earth but less-profitable" is unlikely to do much.» 1. Don't underestimate the human psychic. People are said to be rational, but we often come to surpr

«"Like Earth but less-profitable" is unlikely to do much.» 1. Don't underestimate the human psychic. People are said to be rational, but we often come to surprise ourselves. As a joke, if you don't have sane/rational volunteers, just create a religion! 2. Don't overestimate the general conditions on our home planet. I hope I won't come to see it in my lifetime, but escaping from here could be similar (at least in sentiment) to escaping from one's home-town/home-country or worse. Things can always get worse in a lot of different ways, and then when comparing again, the Venus option could start to appear as a pragmatic one.

mrec 12y ago
I have a hard time imagining Earth getting so awful that Venus looks like the better option. Even after an all-out nuclear war, it wouldn't be that bad. This is what made the fundamental plot kicker of 'Interstellar' so daft. "Oh, we have a crop disease problem and dust storms? Clearly we must move the human race to another planet, even if it's a frozen hellscape with no breathable atmosphere." As opposed to, say, building some greenhouses, or ramping up aquaculture or aeroponics.
- starwaver 12y ago
  I absolutely agree with the plot flaws. I'm sure there are much easier ways to solve crop disease and dust storm problems. It'll probably involves alot of genetically modified crops and building dust proof houses.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  I have a hard time imagining Earth getting so awful that Venus looks like the better option. The moving to the new world involved taking on all sorts of new risks, but people still did it for non-economic reasons. Instead of religious freedom, perhaps others will be attracted by the prospect of starting new civilizations or escaping oppression?
  - mrec 12y ago
    They moved to the New World. They didn't move to the middle of Antarctica or the bottom of the Mariana Trench, both of which are far more hospitable than Venus.
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      Make sure you're not stopping at absolute difficulty when you should really be thing about difficulty in the context of technological capability. The near-arctic is a remarkably hostile environment, but humans can live there and thrive with only stone age technology. We are far beyond the stone age level of technology. The number of places that private citizens can live is far expanded as a result. (There are actually people now who have privately-funded undersea habitats!) The decision of some individuals to move from the british isles to N. America for religious reasons happened in a specific economic, geopolitical, and technological context. If the available vessels and navigation were poorer or more expensive, it would not have happened, and they would have done something else. You have to consider these things in their specific context. So, given a strong enough desire for people to live "in space" or "on Mars" or "on Venus" combined with the technological and economic wherewithal to do it, people are going to try. Combine this with very wealthy national powers led by a class of engineer-technocrats with a demonstrated track record of implementing multiple decades long-term payoff projects (China) and the conclusion I come up with is that there is a significant chance that we will wind up with civilizations elsewhere in the solar system. Also, the specific environment they're talking about in the article isn't anywhere close to the Mariana Trench. It's at about 1 atmosphere pressure. The most hostile thing about it would be constantly encountering sulphuric acid clouds. (This would also be a tremendous benefit, however.) Another important difference: The physics of building livable volume favors by far Venus human-aerostat altitudes over the Marianas Trench. Equipment for working "outside" in that specific Venus environment is something we already have a good idea about implementing inexpensively. The basic physics of the Marianas Trench makes doing the same down there orders of magnitude harder. Likewise, other basic physics around energy would preclude economically feasible agriculture in the trench, but indicates that it's quite doable at those altitudes on Venus. A Venus colonist would probably sing songs praising PTFE. (One's already been written: "Polytetrafluoroethylene -- that's Teflon, you @ssholes!") Fortunately, we already know that one could condense fluorine directly out of the atmosphere of Venus with basically just energy as input.
Terr_ 12y ago
First off, note my qualifier "barring catastrophe". Second, "not dying" is an extremely strong economic driver.

mrec 12y ago

I have a hard time imagining Earth getting so awful that Venus looks like the better option. Even after an all-out nuclear war, it wouldn't be that bad. This is what made the fundamental plot kicker of 'Interstellar' so daft. "Oh, we have a crop disease problem and dust storms? Clearly we must move the human race to another planet, even if it's a frozen hellscape with no breathable atmosphere." As opposed to, say, building some greenhouses, or ramping up aquaculture or aeroponics.

starwaver 12y ago
I absolutely agree with the plot flaws. I'm sure there are much easier ways to solve crop disease and dust storm problems. It'll probably involves alot of genetically modified crops and building dust proof houses.
stcredzero 12y ago
I have a hard time imagining Earth getting so awful that Venus looks like the better option. The moving to the new world involved taking on all sorts of new risks, but people still did it for non-economic reasons. Instead of religious freedom, perhaps others will be attracted by the prospect of starting new civilizations or escaping oppression?
- mrec 12y ago
  They moved to the New World. They didn't move to the middle of Antarctica or the bottom of the Mariana Trench, both of which are far more hospitable than Venus.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    Make sure you're not stopping at absolute difficulty when you should really be thing about difficulty in the context of technological capability. The near-arctic is a remarkably hostile environment, but humans can live there and thrive with only stone age technology. We are far beyond the stone age level of technology. The number of places that private citizens can live is far expanded as a result. (There are actually people now who have privately-funded undersea habitats!) The decision of some individuals to move from the british isles to N. America for religious reasons happened in a specific economic, geopolitical, and technological context. If the available vessels and navigation were poorer or more expensive, it would not have happened, and they would have done something else. You have to consider these things in their specific context. So, given a strong enough desire for people to live "in space" or "on Mars" or "on Venus" combined with the technological and economic wherewithal to do it, people are going to try. Combine this with very wealthy national powers led by a class of engineer-technocrats with a demonstrated track record of implementing multiple decades long-term payoff projects (China) and the conclusion I come up with is that there is a significant chance that we will wind up with civilizations elsewhere in the solar system. Also, the specific environment they're talking about in the article isn't anywhere close to the Mariana Trench. It's at about 1 atmosphere pressure. The most hostile thing about it would be constantly encountering sulphuric acid clouds. (This would also be a tremendous benefit, however.) Another important difference: The physics of building livable volume favors by far Venus human-aerostat altitudes over the Marianas Trench. Equipment for working "outside" in that specific Venus environment is something we already have a good idea about implementing inexpensively. The basic physics of the Marianas Trench makes doing the same down there orders of magnitude harder. Likewise, other basic physics around energy would preclude economically feasible agriculture in the trench, but indicates that it's quite doable at those altitudes on Venus. A Venus colonist would probably sing songs praising PTFE. (One's already been written: "Polytetrafluoroethylene -- that's Teflon, you @ssholes!") Fortunately, we already know that one could condense fluorine directly out of the atmosphere of Venus with basically just energy as input.

Terr_ 12y ago

First off, note my qualifier "barring catastrophe". Second, "not dying" is an extremely strong economic driver.