Re: ...Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!
- From: Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:53:24 -0700
In article <Xns986D81BEA45FEjimdavis2earthlinkne@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim Davis <jimdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why do you say that? How could space colonization NOT improve
the long-term survival prospects of the human race? A species
in a smaller, narrower niche is always more vulnerable to
extinction than one in a much broader one. Why would it be
any different for us?
Joe, you're making the implicit assumptions that are not
necessarily true. Not to say that they are false but at this
juncture we cannot say.
In the above you assume that space is a niche for humanity. Maybe
it will be someday but at the moment there is no way to predict
how things will shake out.
That's arguing a different question. The question I believed we were
discussing is: would space colonization improve the prospects for
humanity's survival? But what you're addressing in the last quote above
is a very different one: is space colonization possible?
Argue that space colonization is impossible if you want; that won't
affect whether space colonization would improve our survival prospects.
(At worst, it could render that consideration moot.)
Space colonization is either a burden or a blessing. At this
juncture we don't know which. If it is a burden it will not
improve the long term survival prospects of the human race.
I'm not sure how to interpret this. Can you define "burden" and
"blessing" here in a useful way?
> Or to go at it another way: we can think up lots of disasters
which could wipe out all life on Earth, but couldn't wipe out
life spread throughout the solar system.
But that all depends on what assumptions one makes about the
viability of life throughout the solar system. If life throughout
the solar system depends on earth any disaster that overtakes
earth will doom all life elsewhere also. Does life throughout the
solar system depend on earth? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know.
Aha, now perhaps I see what you're getting at. You're imagining that
space could be colonized and yet remain dependent on Earth. This is
likely to be the main point of difference between us, so maybe we should
focus on it a bit.
I claim that large-scale colonization of space being dependent on Earth
is highly unlikely for two reasons:
1. No new science or extreme technology is needed for self-sufficiency;
we already know how to do all the individual pieces, and it seems
unlikely that putting them together into a working whole would forever
elude us. It's more a problem of scale than of technical difficulty.
2. If putting that all together DOES forever elude us, and space
colonies remain dependent on Earth, then they will never develop beyond
the "base" or "station" level anyway (e.g. McMurdo station, which is
Antarctica's largest population center but is not a colony).
So, if we find life has spread throughout the solar system at some point
in the future, then I would argue (by the two points above) that it is
most certainly NOT dependent on Earth.
Whether or not these
disasters actually happen doesn't matter; because they COULD
happen, the odds of extinction are higher for a planetbound
species than for a system-wide one.
And whether or not these disasters happen has no bearing on the
viability of life throughout the solar system.
True, but that's arguing the different point again, that space
colonization isn't (or may not be) possible. I was making the argument
that if space colonization happens (which of course assumes that it's
possible), then survival prospects are improved.
The only way this could
not be true is if you can think of something that would wipe
out a whole solar system, but NOT wipe out a planetbound race,
and that seems very far-fetched at best.
It is trivial to imagine such a disaster.
Disaster : An asteroid is on a collision course with earth.
Scenario #1: Let us assume that space colonies exist but require
enormous resources from earth to survive.
That's an assumption I can't swallow. Maybe it's semantics, but to me
that is a station, not a colony.
So many resources in
fact that there is little left over for other projects like
monitoring the solar system for asteroids with collision
potential.
Now that's just silly. Asteroid monitoring is so ridiculously cheap
that we're doing it already. :) A world that was supporting large
populations in offworld stations would be able to do it all that much
better -- by putting the monitoring telescopes on the stations, for
example, where they don't have to peer through the atmosphere.
Note that, granting my assumptions about space colonies, having
space colonies makes extinction *more* likely.
Yes, but your assumptions are (begging your pardon) silly.
Now you might object that my assumption that space colonies
require enormous resources from earth is unrealistic. You might
even be right. My point is we *cannot* make that determination at
this juncture.
Yes yes, I understand you're an agnostic about everything you can't
experience today, and on a philosophical level there is some sense in
that. But as a practical level, we can and must make educated guesses
about the future, and some educated guesses are better than others.
Best,
- Joe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: USA develops space-based weapons
- Next by Date: Re: ...Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!
- Previous by thread: Re: ...Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!
- Next by thread: Re: ...Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
