Why is everyone here such a pessmist?

[Seret]

What I'm disagreeing about is that many ppl seem to think that we will no longer keep advancing any more.

Who's saying that? What I see a lot on this forum is disagreement about how achievable some of the more out there ideas (manned interstellar flight, terraforming, etc) are. Some people seem to think that the technologies to enable those are within our grasp, others think they're hundreds or thousands of years down the track. The latter doesn't imply that technology won't improve in the future, just that the technologies required are so far beyond the state of the art that there's no conceivable short-term roadmap to them.

[J.Random]

Being critical is not the same as being pessimistic. Being delusional is not the same as being optimistic.

While I think that we will be able to colonize other planets, I don't think we will be able to do it any time soon.

Building better rockets is a tiny part of the whole task. Saying that new rockets will help, but it's not enough, is being critical. Blindly believing Elon Musk's words about "SpaceX task is to make Mankind redundant" is being delusional.

Look at CELSS "breadboard" project reports. Its efficiency is less than 100% - which means that resulting environment is not self-sustainable. Even more, there's eventual nitrogen buildup. Plants need it in the soil but they release it into atmosphere and there's no means to harvest it. There are projects for creating (or, rather, altering existing) bacteria to reprocess it, but they're in very early stages. Saying that we won't have it done for at least ten years is being critical (and ten years margin is actually quite optimistic). Saying that we already have technologies for self-sustained closed cycle environment is being delusional.

Previous part was about life support redundancy. Now, how about technological redundancy? There is no way to build, say, a simplest CPU at home. The process involves highly dangerous reagents, like hydrofluoric acid. Go on, google it, I'll wait here. Don't forget to read the part with words "toxic", "absorbing through skin" and "blood stream" in it. So, what happens if there's an electronic failure in space? There's backup. Or spare part. Or the mission is failed, if we're out of spares. Big surprise: colony will need some way to build such components without the help from Earth. Saying that we will have it in maybe 20 years is being critical. Saying that we already have such technology (or, even more, that we don't need it) is being delusional.

Terraforming is yet another task. Are we able to terraform another planet (obviously, Mars) with our current technologies? Look at Sahara - do you see a garden there? We can't terraform even our own planet. And Mars has just as much soil as our average desert. Also, building any structures in such environment would need machinery. And some means to repair and reproduce it "in the field", which we don't have (before bringing 3D-printing tech into argument, see previous part about electronic components).

While there's a popular idea that "dreamers" lead the progress, it's actually scientists and engineers which do so - not by dreaming, but by critical thinking, which helps to anticipate problems and prevent them before they happen as "accidents". Blind delusional entitlement, which OP calls "optimism" and demonstrates again and again, leads to disasters.

Edited November 12, 2013 by J.Random

[czokletmuss]

I'm pretty certain of interstellar travel by the mid 22nd century. That is, if NASA keeps getting funded.

From the context it appears you're talking about manned mission. But assuming technological progress sufficient to sent payload to Alpha Centauri by mid 22nd, you're assuming as well that we'll be ready to send robots - and for much smaller costs. Therefore, even in your optimistic view you yourself has just proved that there won't be any manned interstellar missions since probes can do this earlier and cheaper.

[TheSuperintendnt]

I like to try to think positively and dream of what can be, I also know that there are many emerging technologies that will make traveling to Luna or even Mars as easy as going into orbit now. I dout that we will do so with NASA though, it will be private industry that lands the first person on Mars or maybe Luna, and we may find things change. For all of us that have or may have children we must instill the facts, make them wise enough to stave off idiotcracy, and help bring around the change needed. But as for the politics I could see a new space race but it shall be NASA that will be scrambling to keep up. I can realistically see interplanetary travel become common place by 2100, and at the very least interstellar at the level of Avatar.

Just my thoughts, but one last thing, look just how far we have come since 1900, or since 1800, I can only imagine what 2100 will look like.

[NASAFanboy]

From the context it appears you're talking about manned mission. But assuming technological progress sufficient to sent payload to Alpha Centauri by mid 22nd, you're assuming as well that we'll be ready to send robots - and for much smaller costs. Therefore, even in your optimistic view you yourself has just proved that there won't be any manned interstellar missions since probes can do this earlier and cheaper.

Need not be that.

I'm thinking about human-robotic cyborgs that can survive the long trip heading there. Yes, most likely robotic probes would've went first, but I still believe it would be likely for the kids of the "Mars Generation" live to see the first starship, once you factor in medical advances. What is a manned vessel, and what is not? I'm still wondering. If you take a bunch of AI that had been born human, had their mind's uploaded to robotic bodies and send them on a starship, is it a robotic ship or a manned ship? If it's made of humans that are not completely organic, is it robotic or human? I'm just going to guess organic AI is probe. But thats still somewhat a manned mission, sort of. Besides, I value colonization over science, and so does the majority of the public (I mean the general public that think going to orbit is straight up)

We can't terraform a already habitable world. Mars is a whole different ballpark. Yes, we are technically terraforming Earth, but yet again, we don't have thing CO2 atmospheres. And even if we do terrform Mars, we'll most likely just have polar oceans and deserts along the equator.

While we lack the technology to land men on Mars, we do have the technology for Mars manned flyby/orbital missions and for lunar bases (That would need resupply for Earth in the same manner as the ISS). So yes, while we do have technology to sustain people up to a year and a half (And we do have people on the ISS/Mir who've spent that time in space without return), I doubt we could do a three-year mission to Mars. But we'll have it in 2020.

I don't care if a goal is unattainable. I'm going to throw myself at it until I die, then proceed to keep throwing myself at it in the afterlife.

[Moach]

If I may venture a wild argument:

I find: "Why is everyone here such a pessimist" is a question that has a somewhat pessimistic bias to it already built in.

Wouldn't an optimist ask instead: "Where did all the other optimists go?"

perhaps it's not that everyone is a pessimist then - could it not be just that those who do see a better future might be well intent on pursuing it?

and maybe they're so dedicated to it, that they forget they were supposed to stop and make a good defense for their case against an internet full of pessimists

so why not? -- can't we have an optimistic way of looking at pessimism?

"impossible" is a big, thick word - from which the littlest minds borrow size.

-- just made that up right now...

[metalmouth7]

I'm an economic and political pessimist, not a technological pessimist. We just won't spend the money, or take the needed risks.

The issue is, right now, we could most likely have a probe en-route to Proxima Centauri, and it would take about a century to get there (Utilizing Project ORION.) If we had launched it within 10 years of us first developing the technology, we'd be getting the data back in the next 5-10 years. It's not much of a leap to say that we could have a manned craft doing a similar mission (Radiation shielding isn't really an issue for a mission like this. You could use a larger amount, because of Orion's absolutely MASSIVE power output.)

What really holds us back is that it "costs too much," and is "far too dangerous." Now, I agree that firing a Nuclear Pulse Engine in the atmosphere is a very bad idea, but it's sad to see such ideas being thrown away completely because of mere politics (JFK ordered it canceled because he thought the military applications were horrifying,) or because they aren't military in nature, and so they don't warrant spending.

Edited November 27, 2013 by metalmouth7

[louddifference]

people are pessimists because it seems more realistic. if i say we wont be around in 100 years and we are ill be super happy but if i say well be gone in 100 years and we start to diminish in 20 years ill feel terrible.

[Godot]

...

If you take a bunch of AI that had been born human, had their mind's uploaded to robotic bodies and send them on a starship, is it a robotic ship or a manned ship?

...

If you talk about "replacing" the brain of the human body with electronic circuitry, then this basically would be murder ... even if you are able to map the neurons of the brain with such an accuracy, that the result would act like the person whose brain was mapped, you basically destroy the substrate of its consciousness and replace it with an artificial version of this consciousness.

You would basically get something that may act like the original person, but isn´t it (considering the fact that you replaced the biological brain with silicon chips, you may even find differences in the development of the person with regards to its later learning/development)

(there was a nice short story in the 80s about something similar involving teleportation ... detective had to research a case where human remains had been found in the waste of a research lab ... he then found out that it was because they exprimnted with a form of Star Trek transportation: The Original was scanned atom for atom at one source transmitter station, the data sent to the target transmitter and then a 1:1 copy assembled at the target station, while the (unlucky) originals were disintegrated at the source transmitter station [whose remains then were cleaned up by cleaning robots and put into waste bins] ... technically similar to what IMHO would be if you replaced your brain with an electronic circuitry)

Would be different however if you just talk about "duplicating" the human in some kind of elctronic form (that is, the brain of the "source" person is scanned and a cyborg duplicate is created (while the person itself lives on with its brain intact))

Edited November 27, 2013 by Godot

[Seret]

I don't think it would necessarily be murder either conceptually or legally.

If a consciousness were able to be digitised (whether the original was wiped or not) then from the perspective of the mind being digitised nothing untoward would have happened. The victim would, from their perspective, not have been deprived of their right to live and enjoy their life. Since there would be no complaint to be made, it's doubtful whether this would be murder in legal terms either. Who would press charges, and on what basis? The only time it would be murder would be if the process of digitising the mind wasn't destructive, but the original meat copy was then destroyed. I can't think of any reason why that would be necessary.

[J.Random]

Since there would be no complaint to be made, it's doubtful whether this would be murder in legal terms either.

I'm not sure about "murder" part as well, but this argument of yours is kinda weird. Victim of murder never complains in real murder cases* too, you know.

* Unless it's X-Files.

[Seret]

No, but the reason murder is a serious crime is because it infringes a person's basic rights (namely the right to life). Obviously they can't normally complain themselves. That sort of goes without saying.

My point is that if the person were still happily living their life post-digitisation, then their right to life hasn't been infringed.

[J.Random]

You wouldn't be able to prove that's the same person.

[minimuffin]

I am not very pessimistic, in my opinion. Also, I think that other people are not really pessimistic, they simply face reality. (I dream alot)

[Monkeh]

To OP:

Whilst travelling to Alpha Centauri seems like an almost impossible or pointless venture to us now, I'd like to remind everyone of the HUGE advancements we've made in only the last 30 years. As long as I can remember with any certainty. When I went to university we queued outside public phone boxes to ring home because no-one had a mobile phone.

Take me back to then now with a working Wi-Fi connection and my smart phone and my student self simply wouldn't BELIEVE what I was seeing! Being able to grab any piece of information I could literally think of, any slice of film or music or...just...anything, watch it on an HD screen WHICH ISN'T EVEN CONNECTED TO ANYTHING...and I would have probably fainted or died with excitement, possibly both.

Within a couple hundred years none of us can really imagine where we'll be or what we'll be able to do, let's be honest, so I'm a cautious optimist regarding our future as a species. Yes, we have many problems and yes, we have plenty of possible doom scenarios that could destroy us, but we also have HUMAN BEINGS.

Again, therein lies some problems but the majority of people are good people. The London riots of 2011 were shocking, a minority of disgruntled people decided to just go nuts for a few nights, London burned.

But then the people came out, the good people, the people who had lost businesses and homes and the sense of security, they came in their thousands with brushes and mops and rubber gloves, to clean the mess and make it right again, chanting against the rioters.

That is why we'll be a galaxy spanning civilisation one day, because we can be, and we humans are awesome.

[Godot]

You wouldn't be able to prove that's the same person.

With a thought experiment one might even show that indeed they are different persons ...

just imagine that the scan process is non destructive ... also imagine that the technoloigy is sufficiently advanced that you can take out a biological brain and keep it alife outside of the body.

Now lets do this experiment:

You scan the "Victims" brain and create the artificial silicon brain out of these scans.

Now you take out the original (biological) brain of the victim and connect this to an artificial voice generator, artificial eyes and ears and so on, so that the biological brain has the means to communicate with its environment.

Into the original (biological) body you implant the artificial silicon brain that you created from the neural scans.

Now you have 2 different entities with whom you could lead similar talks.

Now, 2 questions arise:

1. Which of the 2 entities would house the original consciousness? (IMHO it would be the biological brain)

2. Could you kill one of these 2 entities without calling it murder?

Well, I think if you can answer the 2nd question with "No", then you also have to answer the question, if killing the biological brain in situ (in order to replace it with an artificial neural network) would be murder, with "Yes"

[Seret]

You wouldn't be able to prove that's the same person.

Well, the new digitised version would say they were the same person. Who would have the right to tell them they weren't?

The whole thing opens a big legal and ethical pandora's box. When does an artificial being have the same rights as a biological one? How do we define the point at which it gets those rights? These are really tough questions that we'll have to face at some point.

[TheSuperintendnt]

To Monkeh

YES! ALL MY YES!

This is what I was trying to say, but it seems that you have said it much better!

[Holo]

With a thought experiment one might even show that indeed they are different persons ...

just imagine that the scan process is non destructive ... also imagine that the technoloigy is sufficiently advanced that you can take out a biological brain and keep it alife outside of the body.

Now lets do this experiment:

You scan the "Victims" brain and create the artificial silicon brain out of these scans.

Now you take out the original (biological) brain of the victim and connect this to an artificial voice generator, artificial eyes and ears and so on, so that the biological brain has the means to communicate with its environment.

Into the original (biological) body you implant the artificial silicon brain that you created from the neural scans.

Now you have 2 different entities with whom you could lead similar talks.

Now, 2 questions arise:

1. Which of the 2 entities would house the original consciousness? (IMHO it would be the biological brain)

2. Could you kill one of these 2 entities without calling it murder?

Well, I think if you can answer the 2nd question with "No", then you also have to answer the question, if killing the biological brain in situ (in order to replace it with an artificial neural network) would be murder, with "Yes"

You replace one neuron of your brain with a robotic version that perfectly imitates it's function. Are you still you? If so, continue. If not, then consider that neurons die and are replaced constantly, so you're technically dead.

You replace one million neurons of your brain with robotic versions. Are you still you? If so, continue. If not, then at what point between replacing one and a million neurons do you cease to be you?

You replace one billion neurons of your brain with robotic versions. Are you still you?

You replace every neuron of your brain with a robotic version.

Are you still you?

[Godot]

You replace one neuron of your brain with a robotic version that perfectly imitates it's function. Are you still you? If so, continue. If not, then consider that neurons die and are replaced constantly, so you're technically dead.

You replace one million neurons of your brain with robotic versions. Are you still you? If so, continue. If not, then at what point between replacing one and a million neurons do you cease to be you?

You replace one billion neurons of your brain with robotic versions. Are you still you?

You replace every neuron of your brain with a robotic version.

Are you still you?

The old "How long stays a restaurated ship the same, when you gradually replace all important parts of it with new parts that look identical"

From a neurobiological standpoint I would think that time is a factor. If, say, you gradually replace one neuron after the other with artificial ones (that perfectly have the same connection strength/connections with all other neurons), over a period of several years, I guess the brain would adapt to it and the consciousness created by the brain would still believe to be the same one and would survive in the new brain (after all this is similar to how our brain adapts to slow changes in the body ... for example the loss of vision ... if a loss of vision is gradually, lets say, perfect vision -> -1 Dioptre over several years, you might not notice it, in contrast to, when you suddenly get from perfect vision to -1 Dioptre from 1 day to the other ... same for increasing bodyweight/fatness ... if your proportions increase over several cm during a decade, it won´t be as obvious to you, as if the increase would happen overnight).

In contrast to this, I would assume that, if you would, in one big surgery, take out the biological brain, kill it, and then would replace the whole brain with an artificial one that was built according to exact brainscans, the original consciousness would die, whereas the artificial brain would create a separate consciousness, which would believe that it is the original consciousness, but it is´t really the original one.

Of course, this is spoken from a strict atheistical standpoint (i.e. absence of some kind of separate metaphysical soul) and in concordance with some neurobiological theories, which assume that "consciousness" is something that is generated by an "observing network" of neurons that stretch across all different lobes of the brain.

[Simon Ross]

Have generally gone through my life being an optimist rather then a pessimist, having said that, my views on us surviving as a technological society have certainly darkened over the last decade.

A very good book to read on the subject is A Step Farther Out by Jerry Pournelle, it was originally published in 1984 and is a series of essays that look at what was possible. All in all it's a fine read, covering such diverse subjects as energy, space flight, life extension, education etc... One of Pournelle's main points through the book is that the only way we are going to advance as a species is investing in high technology and research.

The book ends with the following...

'We could do it. We could spiral down until we have so few surplus resources that Roberto Vacca’s knockout becomes possible; to a point where we have very little, and many seethe with discontent, and suddenly it all explodes in riots, or war, or chaos; and when we recover from that (some of us) we will find that the business of living takes all our talents and energies; and our grandchildren will curse our memories.'

When I first read this book 29 years ago, I never really believed that we would ever get to that point, but more and more I am suspecting that Pournelle may be frighteningly correct

Edited December 11, 2013 by Simon Ross

[astropapi1]

i am [FLUFFY BUNNIES]ing famous!

Can't even caps lock on here wtf?

I'm also gonna steal that signature if you don't mind.

[iDan122]

We will probably send people to other star systems in some 150-300 years if we don't become overpopulated by that time, anything can happens, even a war that can wipe out half the population and make more resources available, anything is possible, even an asteroid hitting us before that happens. Predicting the future is hard, and not recommended.

Considering what Simon said, he is right.

Pournelles book is actually predicting what the future will most likely be like.

The way I see the future there are 2 possible outcomes: we finally actually start regulating

the population so we don't overpopulated and leave only the most useful people on Earth and become a higher tier civilization consisting out of bright minds, with lots of resources to spare and start gathering resources from the Moon, and later the asteroids. We grow, we colonize the planets of the solar system and gather more than enough resources for an interstellar ship(one way of course). That ship establishes a colony on some exoplanet and advances there, until it manages to start building ships to go back to our system too. And s we expand farther and farther around the galaxy and eventually meet other intelligent life forms.

Now the worst case scenario: Earth becomes overpopulated, the ozone layer is almost gone, earths resources are dried out, massive wars start for resources and we basically become extinct before the end of this century.

Once I grow up, I will do everything I can to prevent the second scenario, and I will do my best to inspire others to follow my example.

Edited December 14, 2013 by iDan122

[Simon Ross]

@iDan

Totally agree with you. On the whole, Pournelle's book is quite positive in it's outlook, but is very clear about the risks of not advancing quickly enough while the resources are available to do it. Nearly 30 years later we live in a world where workable fusion is still 50 years away, where any attempt to build safe modern fission reactors are subject to years of delay and protests. You know you are heading for trouble when even the anti nuclear lobby are suddenly finding it to be a less unpleasant alternative to some of the things we are now having to do to supply our energy needs for the future.

If we think that putting a dam across every river, a turbine on every hill and fracking our way out of trouble is the answer. then we really are in the s**t !

Edited December 15, 2013 by Simon Ross

[iDan122]

If I were to rule the world, i would definitely promote nuclear fission and stop any ways of getting energy which emit by-products. Recycling would become obliged by law, because non-recycling is getting out of control(we have a plastic soup twice the size of France in the north pacific.