[HN Gopher] Spaceship Earth
___________________________________________________________________
Spaceship Earth
Author : happy-go-lucky
Score : 94 points
Date : 2021-03-14 17:56 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| dwheeler wrote:
| Spaceship Earth has terrible steering, which in the very long
| term will be a problem as the Sun starts becoming a red giant.
| But over time I can imagine steering becoming possible:
| https://dwheeler.com/essays/move-spaceship-earth.html
| lukifer wrote:
| See also: https://qntm.org/moving
| h2odragon wrote:
| Salute for long term thinking there; but what about the shorter
| term? If we straightened the earth's axis could we eliminate
| winter and condemn the dwellers of the bereft nightlands to
| eternal cold; and gain a lack of winter for those of us with
| sense to live where the water is liquid?
|
| I'd love to do it but the planet as a unit is too squishy to
| apply that much energy to it. I'd like this to happen before
| next winter; but apparently it'll take centuries if we add the
| "and dont kill all life on the planet" as a requirment.
| chr1 wrote:
| We could eliminate winter on most of earth in a much simpler
| way, and generate lots of electricity as a side effect, using
| ocean thermal energy conversion plants [1].
|
| Using thermal gradient of ocean near equator they generate
| electricity and heat up deep water, which results in stronger
| gulfstream, and another set of heat exchange plants in the
| arctic uses temperature difference between air and water,
| (which is normally separated by ice in the winter). This will
| result in much milder climate everywhere.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conver
| sio...
| staunch wrote:
| A lot of what holds people back from embracing this concept is a
| belief in "personal responsibility" AKA free will.
|
| Even George Orwell's quote hints at this problem:
|
| "...we must all cooperate and see to it that everyone does his
| fair share..."
|
| Everyone's "fair share" is whatever they actually do. Everyone is
| always doing their best, given their genetics and environment. No
| one chooses to be "dumb" or "lazy" because no healthy person
| would choose that, given an actual choice. The person that does
| lots of hard work is able to do so only because they're able to,
| and not by choice either.
|
| If we could get everyone to embrace this worldview it would
| resolve almost all of the progressive/conservative divide, and
| make it much easier for people to work together towards common
| goals.
|
| But most humans are addicted to the belief that they're in
| control of their lives, and if they're in control, everyone else
| has to be as well. And so we can't have nice things.
| jjcc wrote:
| The problem is not about understanding the concept such as
| "...we must all cooperate and see to it that everyone does his
| fair share..." because it is not a complicated one itself. The
| same concept has been reflected in some Hollywood movies and
| cartoons. The real issue is why in reality human are not
| embracing it and even behaving quite opposite although such a
| concept is very easy to understand. There could be some reasons
| related to how we evolved till today and not many people really
| understand.
| skindoe wrote:
| So I agree with your main point that free will is an illusion
| like many others Sam Harris outlines this point well.
|
| However your last paragraph that because people are "addicted
| to the belief that they are in control of their lives we can't
| have nice things" implies that they have control over what they
| are addicted to and that your post is somehow information that
| will help to change this.
|
| Neither of those implications can be true if your initial
| premise is true
| foxhop wrote:
| I do have control over parts of my life. Not much but I do have
| influence. We do not need to give anything up or sacrifice
| anything. We need to wake up and take action in life's work
| living as close to natural as possible while taking advantage
| of technology only for the simbiotic good of life on the
| planet. Love, Truth, Freedom.
| cvaidya1986 wrote:
| We need orbiting space cities and space ships that travel with
| civilizations on them to distant stars. Trillions of humans
| exploring the universe!!!
| einpoklum wrote:
| 1. If those space-cities aren't self-sufficient, they're a
| terrible pain to maintain from the surface; and if they are,
| well - they don't really need us gravity-well people all that
| much.
|
| 2. The universe doesn't need Trillions of people exploring it,
| thank you very much. (Unless you subscribe to Leto II Atreides'
| Golden Path, that is.)
| iso1210 wrote:
| The universe doesn't need anything, but life has a 'need' to
| spread everywhere it can.
| emre wrote:
| The documentary is well worth watching:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmN91K4R0_U
| einpoklum wrote:
| The link tells me: "This video is not available".
| xixixao wrote:
| Spaceship Solar System and Spaceship Milky Way are also real, but
| luckily we don't have a way to mess those up yet.
|
| In that view Earth might be a cabin, the only one that we really
| have long term access to.
|
| Mars might be a new, very empty and cold cabin that opens up to
| us soon.
| NateEag wrote:
| Mars is a cabin with a hole in the wall straight to hard
| vacuum, in that analogy.
| bordercases wrote:
| If we can't rejuvenate the ecosystem of the Earth it's
| pointless to think about settling Mars.
|
| Every technology required to settle Mars is indefinitely easier
| to prototype on the Earth, particularly soil enrichment.
| roughly wrote:
| I think it was Mika McKinnon who once noted that the idea of
| us terraforming Mars was a bit rich considering we're
| actively de-terraforming Earth
| Meerax wrote:
| Would you mind elaborating on your first sentence a bit more?
| I personally feel that the tools we create and lessons we
| learn to be able to live on Mars could be a tremendous
| benefit to us and Earth.
| gambiting wrote:
| Not OP, but I feel similar way - these lessons can be
| learned here on earth(colony on the bottom of the ocean?)
| Or simply on the moon, without going all the way to mars.
| It looks like due to radiation anyone living in mars would
| have to live underground anyway, so what's the difference
| between that and a habitat on the moon? Except for the moon
| being infinitely easier to get to and back.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _what 's the difference between that and a habitat on
| the moon?_
|
| Gravity and the hope of terraforming.
|
| You're underestimating the power of inspiration. Saving
| the planet is dreary business. Colonising a new one is
| exciting. Those callings motivate different people in
| different ways. Constraining us to one problem means
| those who might have been inspired to study chemistry to
| terraform Mars find it more attractive to go into
| finance.
| iso1210 wrote:
| By all means put your money and effort into a colony on
| the moon or on the bottom of the sea (very different
| problem due to pressure)
| gambiting wrote:
| Habitat design wise, sure. But a lot of problems would be
| similar, especially if you were aiming to make it self
| sustainable. Growing food, living in close proximity to
| other people, only occasional resupplies....and benefits
| would be similar too. Technologies to maintain life in an
| environment absolutely deadly to humans, whatever tech we
| come up with to combat loneliness and proper
| nutrition.....
|
| My point is - I feel like fixating on Mars is doing more
| harm than good in terms of our progress as a species. But
| you're right - it's not my money being spent.
| hownottowrite wrote:
| Yes, but Mars has better zoning.
| iso1210 wrote:
| And technology used to settle Mars will be able to be used to
| fix problems on earth.
|
| Rich people seem to be happy to pump money into the idea of
| breaking free from Earth, and that's great. I'd rather have
| Musk and Bezos than Buffet and Ellison
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > And technology used to settle Mars will be able to be
| used to fix problems on earth.
|
| Which technologies, and which problems, specifically?
|
| If Earth reaches a point where we require Martian survival
| habs to stay alive - on Earth - then it is essentially game
| over for the massively interconnected ecosystems that make
| Earth our unique and precious home.
| [deleted]
| lukifer wrote:
| I'm impressed to learn that the metaphor was first coined by
| Henry George, better known for his advocacy of a tax on land rent
| (also the inspiration for the game Monopoly).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Monopoly
| mudlus wrote:
| "Nowadays, this idea has a dramatic name: Spaceship Earth. And
| the idea there is that outside the spaceship, the universe is
| implacably hostile, and inside is all we have, all we depend on,
| and we only get the one chance: if we mess up our spaceship,
| we've got nowhere else to go. Now, the second thing that everyone
| already knows is that, contrary to what was believed for most of
| human history, human beings are not, in fact, the hub of
| existence. As Stephen Hawking famously said, we're just a
| chemical scum on the surface of a typical planet that's in orbit
| around a typical star, which is on the outskirts of a typical
| galaxy, and so on.
|
| Now, the first of those two things that everyone knows is kind of
| saying that we're at a very untypical place, uniquely suited and
| so on. And the second one is saying that we're at a typical
| place. And, especially if you regard these two as deep truths to
| live by and to inform your life decisions, then they seem a
| little bit to conflict with each other. But that doesn't prevent
| them from both being completely false. "
|
| https://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_chemical_scum_that_d...
| eterevsky wrote:
| David Deutsch points out that the Spaceship Earth view is a bit
| inconsistent. Its supporters often claim that we need to preserve
| Earth as much as possible, and keep it in a "natural" state. At
| the same time if you live in a spaceship, you should take charge
| of it, solve its problems rather than just try to preserve status
| quo.
| tobr wrote:
| That's how analogies work. There are limits to how far you can
| take the comparison, or it wouldn't be an analogy, just a
| synonym.
| staunch wrote:
| True, but this analogy works just fine here. There's no
| contradiction if you consider the argument of preserving the
| status quo as total non-sense. Of course you should use a
| spaceship and its resources to improve the situation of the
| inhabitants, and to the greatest degree possible.
|
| I would argue that we should include all conscious creatures
| as the inhabitants, not just humans, even if we do decide to
| prioritize our own species.
| lukifer wrote:
| > take charge of it, solve its problems
|
| The metaphor is most strongly correlated with Bucky Fuller [0],
| who was explicitly advocating exactly that (including but not
| limited to ecological sustainability).
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_Manual_for_Spaceship...
| monocasa wrote:
| So I've been binging Stargate lately while working on other
| stuff, and a common trope they'll fall back on is being trapped
| on a derelict starship designed by a dead ancient race where
| the two goals of survival and preservation of the starship's
| status quo need to strike an appropriate balance. This is
| because so much of that starship the characters don't have a
| great grasp on. There's so much lurking in it that they both
| currently depend on for survival and don't realize, and it
| contains knowledge and insights that'll help us improve the
| status quo in the future if we don't destroy it. Yes, survival
| is always goal one, but massive compromises need to be made for
| preservation and balancing them is key.
|
| I think the metaphor works pretty well for Starship Earth too.
| paulpauper wrote:
| The earth is not at all like a spaceship. For something to be a
| shapeship requires that it have a propulsion system and freedom
| of movement. Earth is forever locked in its orbit
| mmoskal wrote:
| We built lots of what makes Earth habitable. Try removing your
| clothes, housing, heating, etc. and see how long you survive. If
| you happen to live in a place where that doesn't kill you in a
| day, then if it were not for humans there would be probably some
| tiger trying to kill you.
|
| Now, of course building that stuff on Mars or in space is harder,
| but certainly not impossible, and if we as a species are to
| survive indefinitely, necessary.
|
| edit: The point being most of what humans did to Earth makes it
| more habitable (for humans), not less
| lisper wrote:
| > We built lots of what makes Earth habitable. Try removing
| your clothes, housing, heating, etc. and see how long you
| survive.
|
| Even a totally unprepared person can survive for many hours
| with none of these things in most places on earth. If you
| happen to be near a source of fresh water in a not-too-cold
| climate you can survive for days, and if there's a natural food
| source nearby you can survive indefinitely. That is crucial
| because it means you have a lot longer to build the things you
| need in order to improve your odds in more hostile
| environments, and a lot more margin for error when things don't
| go quite right.
|
| By way of very stark contrast, a human without a space suit
| will survive for at most a few seconds on Mars. That doesn't
| leave nearly as much margin for error.
|
| So yes, engineering our environment is integral to our survival
| even here on earth. Nonetheless, earth and Mars are in on way
| comparable as a consequence of this.
| jtanner wrote:
| David Deutsch shatters the myth of spaceship earth.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R6e4xNoarg
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-14 23:01 UTC)