O'Neill Space Stations on 99% Invisible podcast

[Nightside]

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/home-on-lagrange/

My favorite podcast just did an episode about space colonization.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Nightside

[Bill Phil]

Let's just hope planetary chauvinism dies.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

I agree with charlie bolden. we need mars colonies and orbital ones. but mars Society never says why mars is better than space colonies, which is annoying.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

I agree with charlie bolden. we need mars colonies and orbital ones. but mars Society never says why mars is better than space colonies, which is annoying.

Maybe it's because they're not? At least initially. We need better and more long term habitation experience, and it's better to experiment near Earth in case something goes wrong. If we just rush for a Mars colony we might end up causing unnecessary deaths.

[Nibb31]

13 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

I agree with charlie bolden. we need mars colonies and orbital ones. but mars Society never says why mars is better than space colonies, which is annoying.

We don't *need* either. A tiny minority of people think they would be cool, but that is not a *need*.

[Robotengineer]

3 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

We don't *need* either. A tiny minority of people think they would be cool, but that is not a *need*.

Yep, because this planet will continue to be able to support an increasing population, while also dealing with climate change, the threat nuclear war, and NEO's. 

The continued existence of our species is such a minor, niche interest. 

[Nibb31]

20 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

Yep, because this planet will continue to be able to support an increasing population, while also dealing with climate change, the threat nuclear war, and NEO's. 

Easy solution: stop increasing population. Getting population and climate change under control are going to be prerequisites for any significant colonization effort. We are not going to have space colonies in the next couple of centuries if we can't survive those threats over the next couple of decades.

As for nuclear war or NEOs, they would not kill 100% percent of the population instantaneously. There is no reason to believe that the subsequent population bottleneck would be significantly different with or without a space colony.

Quote

The continued existence of our species is such a minor, niche interest. 

Why would it be otherwise? Nothing lives forever. There is no right or wrong in evolution. Nobody is going to feel bad when we go extinct.

Even then, there aren't any threats where a space colony would guarantee our survival. If you can support thousands of people in a closed-loop space colony, then you can support millions in a closed-loop earth colony on a scorched earth for a fraction of the effort.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Nibb31

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Easy solution: stop increasing population. Getting population and climate change under control are going to be prerequisites for any significant colonization effort. We are not going to have space colonies in the next couple of centuries if we can't survive those threats over the next couple of decades.

As for nuclear war or NEOs, they would not kill 100% percent of the population instantaneously. There is no reason to believe that the subsequent population bottleneck would be significantly different with or without a space colony.

Why would it be otherwise? Nothing lives forever. There is no right or wrong in evolution. Nobody is going to feel bad when we go extinct.

Even then, there aren't any threats where a space colony would guarantee our survival. If you can support thousands of people in a closed-loop space colony, then you can support millions in a closed-loop earth colony on a scorched earth for a fraction of the effort.

There is nothing wrong with building space colonies anyway, and at the same time. it is in our interest as a species, that we do everything possible to ensure our future survival. Space colonies would help, and if we want to survive, we need to spread to the stars.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

There is nothing wrong with building space colonies anyway, and at the same time. it is in our interest as a species, that we do everything possible to ensure our future survival. Space colonies would help, and if we want to survive, we need to spread to the stars.

My point is that there is no evidence that colonization would have any effect on our survival as a species. The keys to our survival for the foreseeable future are on Earth.

First of all, you need to define the species, what makes us what we are, and what you want to actually preserve. When it comes to taxonomy, lines can be very blurred. Our species will evolve and turn into something different or go extinct, no matter how much effort to spend on building artificial environments. It's no big deal. Species evolve and go extinct every day, it's just how nature works. 

If it's our civilization or culture that you want to save, then that is even more short-lived. There has never been a single human culture or civilzation, and there is no reason to believe that our current culture deserves to be preserved any more than the Roman Empire or Precolumbian civilizations.

In the future, it might become apparent that we need to spread to the stars, but that is far from an actual *need* at this stage. For the next couple of decades, we are stuck here, so our survival is going to depend on how we deal with adapting to our changing environment, not the pipe dream of moving someplace else.

[RenegadeRad]

Guys don't hate on me but what Nibb31 says is the hard truth. There is no point colonizing planets right now, first we need to fix our own world. Once perfect enough and we have loads of extra resources, we can explore and colonize for science. Especially if it benefits us with resources like Karbonite in KSP...

A very BS example I have (in a retrospective) is the lore of Independence day. They made ESD because they needed to survive from outside threats...

A bit optimistic what I said, but better than being that edgy teen who says nothing will happen.

[Bill Phil]

52 minutes ago, RenegadeRad said:

Guys don't hate on me but what Nibb31 says is the hard truth. There is no point colonizing planets right now, first we need to fix our own world. Once perfect enough and we have loads of extra resources, we can explore and colonize for science. Especially if it benefits us with resources like Karbonite in KSP...

A very BS example I have (in a retrospective) is the lore of Independence day. They made ESD because they needed to survive from outside threats...

A bit optimistic what I said, but better than being that edgy teen who says nothing will happen.

But sometimes, in order to perfect your home, you must leave it. 

And this isn't planetary colonization. It's much more feasible than that.

I agree in that there's no point to colonize space now, and that there won't be a reason in the near future.

[RenegadeRad]

Just now, Bill Phil said:

But sometimes, in order to perfect your home, you must leave it. 

And this isn't planetary colonization. It's much more feasible than that.

I agree in that there's no point to colonize space now, and that there won't be a reason in the near future.

Yea. That.

[Robotengineer]

28 minutes ago, RenegadeRad said:

Guys don't hate on me but what Nibb31 says is the hard truth. There is no point colonizing planets right now, first we need to fix our own world. Once perfect enough and we have loads of extra resources, we can explore and colonize for science.

If it is perfect enough and we have loads of extra resources, why bother going at all? We are already exploring for science, but our governments don't care enough to seriously fund colonization efforts, no matter how 'perfect' our situation may become. (In fact, having a 'perfect' situation would likely be a disincentive towards colonization, rather than an incentive.) 

As far as resources go, we can only mine, harvest, and reuse so much, and will eventually run out. 

10 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Easy solution: stop increasing population. Getting population and climate change under control are going to be prerequisites for any significant colonization effort. We are not going to have space colonies in the next couple of centuries if we can't survive those threats over the next couple of decades.

lol. And how exactly are you supposed to stop increasing the population? Put in place a world-wide 2-child policy? Birth control in the water? Genocide? How are you going to deal with the outrage sparked by such policies? Do you seriously think that slowing and eventually stopping population increase is an easier problem than the relatively simple engineering and logistical problem of near-earth colonization? 

Climate change is an equally difficult problem. Until we can get backwards people to accept the science of climate change and start acting on it, the problem will continue to get worse. 

Climate change and population growth aren't like the cold war prospect of nuclear annihilation, where everybody lost should we go to war. Climate change and population growth are both problems that will affect only those young enough to live with the consequences (like myself) while the majority of those who either flat out deny climate change or don't think it is as dangerous as many think it to be won't even be around to deal with the consequences of their own inaction. They are in effect damning myself and my descendants to deal with the effects of their recklessness. 

11 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Why would it be otherwise? Nothing lives forever. There is no right or wrong in evolution. Nobody is going to feel bad when we go extinct.

Even then, there aren't any threats where a space colony would guarantee our survival. If you can support thousands of people in a closed-loop space colony, then you can support millions in a closed-loop earth colony on a scorched earth for a fraction of the effort.

You just said nothing lives forever and then said that there aren't threats where a space colony would guarantee survival, which are contradictory statements. Space colonies aren't about guaranteeing survival, they are about prolonging our species and diminishing the risk of extinction. And really, isn't that a rather nihilistic attitude?

So what if you can support more people in a post-apocalyptic earth colony? You want both so the risk is distributed across the colonies, and you aren't wiped out if one colony fails. 

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

First of all, you need to define the species, what makes us what we are, and what you want to actually preserve. When it comes to taxonomy, lines can be very blurred. Our species will evolve and turn into something different or go extinct, no matter how much effort to spend on building artificial environments. It's no big deal. Species evolve and go extinct every day, it's just how nature works. 

If it's our civilization or culture that you want to save, then that is even more short-lived. There has never been a single human culture or civilzation, and there is no reason to believe that our current culture deserves to be preserved any more than the Roman Empire or Precolumbian civilizations.

It really doesn't matter whether our descendants evolve into a different species, as they are still our descendants. 

So... The fact that our civilization has brought about one of, if not the, most peaceful eras in human history, globalized the world, saved millions of people with modern medicine and technology, and created an open and welcoming society to almost everyone is just another civilization? Roman (and Greek) civilization are the primary influences for our modern civilization, so they are in many ways preserved in our own civilization, just as our civilization will be the foundation for a new one. It's a continuum, not a set of distinct civilizations. 

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

In the future, it might become apparent that we need to spread to the stars, but that is far from an actual *need* at this stage. For the next couple of decades, we are stuck here, so our survival is going to depend on how we deal with adapting to our changing environment, not the pipe dream of moving someplace else.

I don't think anyone is arguing that for the next couple of decades we are going to be stuck here. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't dally on space colonies, and should start preliminary work on them now.

[Nibb31]

6 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

If it is perfect enough and we have loads of extra resources, why bother going at all? We are already exploring for science, but our governments don't care enough to seriously fund colonization efforts, no matter how 'perfect' our situation may become. (In fact, having a 'perfect' situation would likely be a disincentive towards colonization, rather than an incentive.) 

Why would a government fund space colonization exactly?

6 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

As far as resources go, we can only mine, harvest, and reuse so much, and will eventually run out. 

We will run out sooner or later, which is why we need to a sustainable economy *before* we reach out. Spending our scarce resources on a massive colonization effort is a sure way to end up with a depleted Earth and a failed colony.

6 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

lol. And how exactly are you supposed to stop increasing the population? Put in place a world-wide 2-child policy? Birth control in the water? Genocide? 

Education and free birth control should be enough.

If we don't regulate population ourselves, then physics and economics will take care of the problem and it won't be pretty.

6 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

How are you going to deal with the outrage sparked by such policies? Do you seriously think that slowing and eventually stopping population increase is an easier problem than the relatively simple engineering and logistical problem of near-earth colonization? 

Yes, I do. It's much easier to educate girls and to distribute free birth control pills than to build O'Neill colonies. Birth control is already free in many countries.

6 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

You just said nothing lives forever and then said that there aren't threats where a space colony would guarantee survival, which are contradictory statements. Space colonies aren't about guaranteeing survival, they are about prolonging our species and diminishing the risk of extinction. And really, isn't that a rather nihilistic attitude?

Define species and survival. Is it our genetic pool ? Our culture? Our economy? How is any of that of any benefit to the universe beyond our own existence and interests?

I don't think that extinction is any more nihilistic than death (which we accept as part of the cycle of life). On the contrary; if we go extinct, something else will emerge thrive in the niche that we leave empty. Maybe that species will be better, smarter, more benevolent, and generally more worthy of survival than we are. Good for them. Maybe a new era of biodiversity will emerge, much richer than it could be when we were around. Who knows?

The point is that if we go extinct, there won't be anybody around to feel sad about. Life will continue, like it always has. 

6 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

So... The fact that our civilization has brought about one of, if not the, most peaceful eras in human history, globalized the world, saved millions of people with modern medicine and technology, and created an open and welcoming society to almost everyone is just another civilization?

Yes, it has developed mechanisms to protect itself. Like many other species. As for our civilization being peaceful, all it takes is to switch on the news to see that that's just a load of balooney. More people have been exterminated in last century than in the thousands of years before, and I won't be surprised if more of our fellow humans die a violent death in the 21st century than in the 20th.

So which civilization exactly are you talking about? Take a few steps back and look at the big picture. There are (and have been) hundreds of different cultures and civilizations around. Some of them might seem welcoming to you, others might think that your culture is perverted and evil, others think that theirs is the only true civilization, and so on...  

We are not a special snowflake species. From nature's point of view, we are living organisms no more worthy than the millions of species that we exterminate every day. In the grand scheme of the universe, we are insignificant, and that's ok. It's not a bad thing to have some humility.

6 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

Roman (and Greek) civilization are the primary influences for our modern civilization, so they are in many ways preserved in our own civilization, just as our civilization will be the foundation for a new one. It's a continuum, not a set of distinct civilizations.

And many others go completely forgotten. It's no big deal.

6 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that for the next couple of decades we are going to be stuck here. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't dally on space colonies, and should start preliminary work on them now.

I don't think that a majority of taxpayers agree with you. There are a lot of good causes that we should be spending money on: research, exploration, education, environmental sustainability, etc...  I don't think that space colonization is one of them at this point.

[Robotengineer]

13 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Why would a government fund space colonization exactly?

For the same reasons I've laid out before, distributing the risk from extinction events, giving that government's population a greater chance of surviving, opening new markets and giving that country an edge in the coming space economy. All of these require long-term thinking, something that is in short supply these days. 

18 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

We will run out sooner or later, which is why we need to a sustainable economy *before* we reach out. Spending our scarce resources on a massive colonization effort is a sure way to end up with a depleted Earth and a failed colony.

What scarce resources might we deplete with a colonization effort now? 

20 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Education and free birth control should be enough.

If we don't regulate population ourselves, then physics and economics will take care of the problem and it won't be pretty.

But who is going to provide the free birth control, and how are you going to deal with the ideological behemoths that are staunchly against birth control and the general idea of population control? Giving people free education without also providing work that requires that sort of education would create a volatile atmosphere in which you have a lot of highly educated unemployed people. By giving people an education, you are giving them the promise of a better life for them and their families, and if you fail to deliver, they might turn on you. 

27 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Yes, I do. It's much easier to educate girls and to distribute free birth control pills than to build O'Neill colonies. Birth control is already free in many countries.

But distributing birth control and educating girls can have unwanted effects. Just from an engineer's point of view, building colonies is simpler because it is an issue of physics and math. Issues of people, on the other hand, tend to be more difficult due to humans unpredictable nature.

32 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Define species and survival. Is it our genetic pool ? Our culture? Our economy? How is any of that of any benefit to the universe beyond our own existence and interests?

I don't think that extinction is any more nihilistic than death (which we accept as part of the cycle of life). On the contrary; if we go extinct, something else will emerge thrive in the niche that we leave empty. Maybe that species will be better, smarter, more benevolent, and generally more worthy of survival than we are. Good for them. Maybe a new era of biodiversity will emerge, much richer than it could be when we were around. Who knows?

The point is that if we go extinct, there won't be anybody around to feel sad about. Life will continue, like it always has. 

Primarily our gene pool. There is no universal culture across our species, though the one that would most likely be carried into space would initially be our current modern/western/secular culture, which would probably morph into something else.

It's not that extinction itself is nihilistic, it's your attitude towards it. If I were to die tomorrow, the world would go on the same as ever. Someone else will do what I would have done, and I would be forgotten. So what? I still want to live, I still want to achieve my goals, I still want to make a difference. You are basically taking our species as a whole and saying they are an insignificant twig on the tree of life, no more valuable than any other species, past, present, or future. Even though that is true from a macro point of view, it really has nothing to do with the consideration of our future. We can hypothesize about what possible species might follow us if we get wiped out, but it ultimately doesn't matter because we won't be around. Our purpose as a species is to perpetuate our species (and whatever it evolves into), the same as any other species. Just because we will eventually be wiped out doesn't mean we have to just go with it and not fight it. 

In the grand scheme of things, I would rather our species (and its descendants) stay around, just because it is better to exist than not to exist. I tend to have a 'rage against the dying of the light' attitude, whereas you seem to have an 'all things must pass' attitude,' correct me if I'm wrong. 

59 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Yes, it has developed mechanisms to protect itself. Like many other species. As for our civilization being peaceful, all it takes is to switch on the news to see that that's just a load of balooney. More people have been exterminated in last century than in the thousands of years before, and I won't be surprised if more of our fellow humans die a violent death in the 21st century than in the 20th.

So which civilization exactly are you talking about? Take a few steps back and look at the big picture. There are (and have been) hundreds of different cultures and civilizations around. Some of them might seem welcoming to you, others might think that your culture is perverted and evil, others think that theirs is the only true civilization, and so on...  

We are not a special snowflake species. From nature's point of view, we are living organisms no more worthy than the millions of species that we exterminate every day. In the grand scheme of the universe, we are insignificant, and that's ok. It's not a bad thing to have some humility.

As far as peace goes, I was referring more to the postwar order, rather than the past few centuries of our civilization. I'm not suggesting the this relative peace will last a long time, but hopefully we have left behind the massive world wars of the early to mid 20th century. Europe is also 

I'm talking about general secular western civilization/culture. It really doesn't matter what other cultures/civilizations think, because if you just look at the achievements of western culture (which has incorporated parts of other cultures) they greatly outstretch those of other civilizations. We went to the moon, cured polio, invented the computer, etc. Of course, we can debate whether or not technology is the best marker for how advanced a civilization is, and the arts must be taken into account as well. 

The fact that there have been hundreds of other cultures/civilizations doesn't diminish the achievements of a few, just as the fact that there have been millions of other species doesn't diminish the achievements of our own. There is a fine line between humility (which I support) and not caring about one's species at all. 

I would like to add that I support multiculturalism and diversity, which is why I prefer to refer to our species rather than my civ, culture, etc. 

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

don't think that a majority of taxpayers agree with you. There are a lot of good causes that we should be spending money on: research, exploration, education, environmental sustainability, etc...  I don't think that space colonization is one of them at this point.

Almost all of those are either necessary parts of developing colonies or side effects of development. I also never said that it would be governments that would do most of the colonial development. 

[kerbiloid]

We need giant flying comfortable saucer-shaped space cities (like in Visitors series) erasing any difference between space colony and ground settlement.
Then everybody can easily choose what makes him/her happy.

P.S.
Mothership Zeta is fine too.

Edited July 4, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

@Nibb31,how do. Space colonies not help with our survival? Humans and our descendants should do everything we can to advance ourselves and prevent extinction. I do agree, that the government doesn't need to spend on these colonies.

[tater]

Lagrange point colonies don't count in the "save humanity" column of the pros and cons, since a truly humanity-ending catastrophe would be akin to the impact that created the Moon, and L5 would not be a safe place to be. That said, some similar habitats elsewhere would fill that roll assuming they had a sustainable, genetically diverse population o the right size. The idea of Earth-based closed loops doesn't work, as you'd need to build them ahead of time, and you'd need enough of them that you can deal with various impact points (huge impacts would rain secondaries down all over the earth). Better would be to have a spacefaring society to be able to divert threats so they don't hit in the first place. I think at some level this might be a rationale for some deep space colonies, because I think that given unpredictable orbits of threats, we'd need the ability to extemporize once a threat is detected, and having multiple starting points for missions to do so can only help threat mitigation.

The idea that we should not care about extinction is odd, IMO. We care, because we're able to care. I think it's normal to consider "posterity," even on the level of genus Homo (note I leave the species open to the next version(s)). I don't see governments doing it, however, except perhaps subsidy on the asteroid-mitigation level. We'd need a real space economy at some point to drive such a thing (which I'm pretty unsure about happening, frankly).

20 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

So which civilization exactly are you talking about? Take a few steps back and look at the big picture. There are (and have been) hundreds of different cultures and civilizations around. Some of them might seem welcoming to you, others might think that your culture is perverted and evil, others think that theirs is the only true civilization, and so on...  

I don't actually care about cultures that disagree with post-Enlightenment western liberalism in the least. Yeah, that's a chauvinism, but there you go  That's in fact the only culture I'd bring to a colony, since I'd not have anyone head up not from a spacefaring society.

 

20 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

We are not a special snowflake species. From nature's point of view, we are living organisms no more worthy than the millions of species that we exterminate every day. In the grand scheme of the universe, we are insignificant, and that's ok. It's not a bad thing to have some humility.

We are a happy (to us) accident. That something else would come along doesn't mean that I would not prefer to keep humanity alive. The reality is that intelligent life is likely fairly rare in the universe. There is certainly other life out there (from a statistical POV it seems nearly certain), but I tend to think it is not super common (at the risk of turning this into a Fermi Paradox discussion). I think it's worth preserving if we are capable of doing so,

[Nibb31]

33 minutes ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

@Nibb31,how do. Space colonies not help with our survival? Humans and our descendants should do everything we can to advance ourselves and prevent extinction. I do agree, that the government doesn't need to spend on these colonies.

It's up to you to explain how they would help with our survival and i what circumstances.

What sort of event would it save us from? There are nearly 8 billion of us on Earth. Even if an event kills off 99.9% of the population, it would still leave 8 million survivors, which is more than you could possibly sustain on any sort of reality-based self-sufficient space colony.

[Nibb31]

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

For the same reasons I've laid out before, distributing the risk from extinction events, giving that government's population a greater chance of surviving, opening new markets and giving that country an edge in the coming space economy. All of these require long-term thinking, something that is in short supply these days. 

I say that when the manure hits the impeller, there is less chance for a government to be concerned about colonizing space than to start worrying about birth control.

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

What scarce resources might we deplete with a colonization effort now?

Money, since every other resources can be measured by that.

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

But who is going to provide the free birth control, and how are you going to deal with the ideological behemoths that are staunchly against birth control and the general idea of population control? Giving people free education without also providing work that requires that sort of education would create a volatile atmosphere in which you have a lot of highly educated unemployed people. By giving people an education, you are giving them the promise of a better life for them and their families, and if you fail to deliver, they might turn on you. 

You think governments (or in a larger scope, society) will be more likely to pay for space colonies than for birth control and education?

I agree that neither are very likely (which is why I deep down believe that the next generations are prettty much screwed at this point), but 

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

But distributing birth control and educating girls can have unwanted effects. Just from an engineer's point of view, building colonies is simpler because it is an issue of physics and math. Issues of people, on the other hand, tend to be more difficult due to humans unpredictable nature.

Rubbish. Birth control pills exist and can be manufactured for cheap. Space colonies don't, and would require a massive industrial effort beyond anything humanity has ever accomplished.

And every decision boils down to the political, economical, and social incentives, even the relatively simple engineering ones.

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

Primarily our gene pool. There is no universal culture across our species, though the one that would most likely be carried into space would initially be our current modern/western/secular culture, which would probably morph into something else.

You don't need space colonies to preserve our gene pool. Just freeze some embryos, bury them in a vault in Antarctica, and bring them back with robotic nannies when the dust has settled.

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

It's not that extinction itself is nihilistic, it's your attitude towards it. If I were to die tomorrow, the world would go on the same as ever. Someone else will do what I would have done, and I would be forgotten. So what? I still want to live, I still want to achieve my goals, I still want to make a difference.

Absolutely. Enjoy the pleasures of life for what they are and for the time that they last. There's a lot places to visit, a lot of people to meet, a lot of fun to be had.

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

You are basically taking our species as a whole and saying they are an insignificant twig on the tree of life, no more valuable than any other species, past, present, or future. Even though that is true from a macro point of view, it really has nothing to do with the consideration of our future. We can hypothesize about what possible species might follow us if we get wiped out, but it ultimately doesn't matter because we won't be around. Our purpose as a species is to perpetuate our species (and whatever it evolves into), the same as any other species. Just because we will eventually be wiped out doesn't mean we have to just go with it and not fight it. 

There is no purpose. Assuming so would mean that there would be some sort of superior conscience that has a big plan. There isn't. That's not how nature works. The Universe has no purpose. It just is.

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

In the grand scheme of things, I would rather our species (and its descendants) stay around, just because it is better to exist than not to exist. I tend to have a 'rage against the dying of the light' attitude, whereas you seem to have an 'all things must pass' attitude,' correct me if I'm wrong. 

I guess so. I'm going to die one day, so I'd rather make the most of the little time I have than waste time on worrying about ways to live forever.

19 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

As far as peace goes, I was referring more to the postwar order, rather than the past few centuries of our civilization. I'm not suggesting the this relative peace will last a long time, but hopefully we have left behind the massive world wars of the early to mid 20th century.

Hmmm... The "postwar" period (which incidentally has been one of the bloodiest periods in human history) represents 50 years of the 200000 years of existence of our species (99% of which was spent hunting animals and picking roots and berries). Isn't that like trying to extrapolate a future trend based on the last few minutes?

On the geological scale, Humanity's demographic spike over the last 200 years, and the ecological disaster that has been the consequence of it, looks more like the anomolous surge of some sort of passing disease than a mutation that is sustainable in any sort of ecosystem. I'm willing to believe that the rash or fever will be all over in a century or two, just like most virii or pest infestations die out by themselves once they've exhausted their host.

 

[tater]

36 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Hmmm... The "postwar" period (which incidentally has been one of the bloodiest periods in human history) represents 50 years of the 200000 years of existence of our species (99% of which was spent hunting animals and picking roots and berries). Isn't that like trying to extrapolate a future trend based on the last few minutes?

This is flatly untrue. If any of us were alive in 1944, we would have been alive at the least violent time in human history up to that point. The same has been true for centuries. Stephen Pinker has a book on the subject, and there are some decent youtube videos of him giving talks, but basically if you look at stone age societies that survived into the modern world to be studied by anthropologists, and you look at historical evidence from other cultures over human history, you'll find that the chance of a given human being dying due to the actions of another human being have decreased over time. Obviously in fits and starts, but the trend is clear. On those stone age cultures (amazon, new guinea, etc), people had about a 20% chance of death due to homicide. Even in the midst of ww2, those chances were a fraction of 1% (the most violent war in human history looked at from the perspective of total casualties. Genghis Khan's forces might have killed as many as 50 million people in a time period when the population of the earth was vastly smaller (modern Iraq only reached a pre-Khan level population in the last few decades, for example).

I only mention it because there tends to be a perception that the world is more violent, when this is simply not the case.

The short version in a TED talk: 

 

 

The long version:

 

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by tater

[RenegadeRad]

This argument is horse****

[Robotengineer]

8 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I say that when the manure hits the impeller, there is less chance for a government to be concerned about colonizing space than to start worrying about birth control.

But that's the point, by the time manure hits the fan people will care even less about space exploration and colonization than they do now (if that's possible). 

17 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Money, since every other resources can be measured by that.

I was more thinking rare-earth metals, and other rare elements and compounds necessary for space travel. Money isn't really an issue right now. The USA could easily fund a colonization program if they had the will to do it.

22 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

You think governments (or in a larger scope, society) will be more likely to pay for space colonies than for birth control and education?

I agree that neither are very likely (which is why I deep down believe that the next generations are prettty much screwed at this point),

All you need to do is take a brief look at the political situation in the USA (and to some extent, in other parts of the world) to realize that universal birth control, education, and commonsense action on climate change are not going to happen. If politics manage to drag us into a new dark age, would it not be better to jump ship with our brightest and best than try and fix a sinking ship? 

47 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Rubbish. Birth control pills exist and can be manufactured for cheap. Space colonies don't, and would require a massive industrial effort beyond anything humanity has ever accomplished.

And every decision boils down to the political, economical, and social incentives, even the relatively simple engineering ones.

But space colonies don't face the sort of religious and ideological opposition that birth control faces. Heck, even climate change can be slowed and countered with relatively simple science and engineering, the main problem is ideological opposition. So yes, pills are cheaper than O'Neill colonies, but you are going to have a much harder time getting Congress to pay for the pills than getting them to pay for colonies (or something cheaper but similar). NGO's can provide birth control that the government won't fund, but their funding is more limited.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

You don't need space colonies to preserve our gene pool. Just freeze some embryos, bury them in a vault in Antarctica, and bring them back with robotic nannies when the dust has settled.

I guess if that were the only point, but space colonies are about more than just preserving our species, they are about expanding its reach as well.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

There is no purpose. Assuming so would mean that there would be some sort of superior conscience that has a big plan. There isn't. That's not how nature works. The Universe has no purpose. It just is.

By purpose I meant more the imperative set down by the laws of evolution, i.e., that every individual feels the need to reproduce and keep their genetic material in the gene pool. Obviously we have moved beyond individual need to reproduce to a desire to preserve the species as a whole. 

And really, if the universe has no purpose, there is no big plan, etc. What difference does it make to you if people think there is? Personally, I agree with you that the universe has no purpose. But rather than seeing that as a disincentive to expand into the universe, I see it as all the more reason to go. 

In a Universe with no purpose, there is no good reason not to go.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Hmmm... The "postwar" period (which incidentally has been one of the bloodiest periods in human history) represents 50 years of the 200000 years of existence of our species (99% of which was spent hunting animals and picking roots and berries). Isn't that like trying to extrapolate a future trend based on the last few minutes?

On the geological scale, Humanity's demographic spike over the last 200 years, and the ecological disaster that has been the consequence of it, looks more like the anomolous surge of some sort of passing disease than a mutation that is sustainable in any sort of ecosystem. I'm willing to believe that the rash or fever will be all over in a century or two, just like most virii or pest infestations die out by themselves once they've exhausted their host.

I'll refer to @tater's response on the postwar period.

All the more reason to spread. Even if we are a just an infestation, there is no reason not to spread. After all, the Universe has no purpose, no feelings, it is just a vast open space, one that we can start to fill.

22 minutes ago, RenegadeRad said:

This argument is horse****

Such an informing and useful post. /s 

If you are going to bother to post, at least post something pertinent to the discussion.

[tater]

18 minutes ago, RenegadeRad said:

This argument is horse****

Which argument?

The "safeguard humanity" argument? I think it is clearly literally true---if we moved a sufficiently large number (biological diversity) of humans to another location, it would certainly mitigate the chance of a cosmic catastrophe from wiping out humanity. The pragmatics of this---how possible/cost effective is it are another matter. You can also argue if we should, I suppose, but you could argue the same about modern civilization, perhaps we should lead brutish, short lives knocking each other over the head with rocks. For reasons. If we should strive to maximize human well-being, then maybe we decide that O'Neil colonies are part of that. Perhaps the effort to do so decreases due to technology (machines to build such habitats autonomously, for example).

Regardless, it's nothing that will happen short-term, heck maybe not on 100 year time lines.

I agree with @Nibb31 on the robot nannies, heck, I assume that in the distant future when something like an O'Neil colony is more practical, they will be constructed by robots anyway... then the robot nannies could be instructed what to do in terms of constructing habitats---assuming humanity preservation is the sole goal.

You could add that why did humans colonize any new place? Clearly it was easier (vastly) on Earth than in space, but that might change with technology (objectively harder, still, but not for the colonists, as they won't be doing the work).

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

21 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

It's up to you to explain how they would help with our survival and i what circumstances.

What sort of event would it save us from? There are nearly 8 billion of us on Earth. Even if an event kills off 99.9% of the population, it would still leave 8 million survivors, which is more than you could possibly sustain on any sort of reality-based self-sufficient space colony.

It could indeed sustain over 8 million survivors. It could save us from unexpected disasters. we could use mars colonies too, but the key of long term human survival is to have hundreds of colonies, orbital and planetary, take care of the earth, and spread to the stars. There is no imminent threat, but we need to start now. we have every necessary piece of technology, and all of the money.