|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Who said embryos are part of a von Neumann probe? That is just one of a billion ways colonization could work. The point of thinking about von Neumann probes is not worrying the specific details and that ANYTHING self replicating would take over a galaxy very quickly. quote:you send a probe controlled by an AI, with a sample of your entire genetic genome stored securely that it then replicates using goo it finds and clones into the first colonists at the destination, presumably raising them/nanny'ing them/teaching them from birth to adulthood to take the first steps to build a new civilization once the world has been either terraformed or if already habitable, once the basic infrastructure to comfortable support their outpost is fully assembled. Read that. There is in no way the ability of us right now to put together a single machine that does any one of those things exactly as listed, let alone everything, "today." Are they impossible? No. But you're talking about AI decades or centuries past where we are now, not to mention needing to design systems to terraform. Who cares if it can self replicate if we literally don't know yet how to terraform planets (we don't)? We'd need to put that knowledge in the probe. And cloning humans from junk we find around? Again, that's pure fantasy right now, what will we incubate them in until birth etc? There are no robots that could nurse them from birth after that. Etc. etc. It's not 21st century technology.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
So how do you protect your magic self replicating colony from having its genetic material flayed by space radiation over it's nigh-infinite journey. Ditto for micrometeorites The fact that everyone is using fiction as a reference for how this would work is pretty telling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Some parts of what I said (i.e our genome) are just examples of how a more advanced civilization would do it in a very "slow" way. But again, the core concept of a von Neumann probe isn't science fiction. And even the human DNA bit is probably readily achievable if we put our minds to it.Unoriginal Name posted:So how do you protect your magic self replicating colony from having its genetic material flayed by space radiation over it's nigh-infinite journey. Sigh. No, it isn't. My post isn't meant to be "What everyone means", I gave both an explanation for a basic concept while also expanding on it a tiny bit in ways we can readily imagine. Like read the pdf linked earlier. I think we'd need a source that space radiation is some currently unsolved theoretical problem. But I did say digital. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Sep 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
Massive redundancy and some lead shielding (assuming we find nothing better by the year 5000 when we do this). Probably send a couple thousand such probes, only need one success. And that's assuming we're only interested in spreading biological life. And are incapable or synthesising it from scratch. Not a lot of micrometeorites by volume in interstellar space. So that's something at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
I'm getting people don't understand massive timescales or how probability, or even how limits work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
You guys are really getting into the minutia without considering the ramifications. If "it's really loving hard, so loving hard that it's much more likely no one can actually do it" is pretty much an answer to the Fermi paradox. It's an answer to why we look out and see nothing. "One managed to make it but they've been dead for billions of years" is also an answer. I'm not on some side here arguing that it's not hard. I'm saying the Fermi paradox should be taken seriously if the goal in mind is to communicate with other alien civilizations. If we could - if SETI were likely to work - it probably would have happened already. Per Fermi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
I'm also not saying it's not possible but the idea we could do something like this today is...hard to believe. You need technology significantly more advanced than what we have today to make ONE of these probes that would do all the things it needs to do (even before factoring in "copying itself and all its functions" as part of that, to be honest).
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Magical thinking...but now in science flavor!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Magical thinking...but now in science flavor! I'm beginning to think this guy that posts nothing but poo poo posts and  in every thread they're in might not be sincere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:I'm beginning to think this guy that posts nothing but poo poo posts and No, I pretty sincerely believe that the answer to Fermi's Paradox is that space travel is inimical to life and is a net resource negative. We are not leaving and nothing is coming. Enjoy your stay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:No, I pretty sincerely believe that the answer to Fermi's Paradox is that space travel is inimical to life and is a net resource negative. We are not leaving and nothing is coming. Enjoy your stay. Why are you even in this thread if you think space is uninteresting and has no value to civilization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Why are you even in this thread if you think space is uninteresting and has no value to civilization. I don't think that thinking interstellar travel is impossible is the same thing as saying space isn't interesting and/or valuable. You could easily make the case that mining asteroids, maybe some space habitats and offworld refineries would be valuable, and wanting to see manned missions to Mars and unmanned missions everywhere, while still not thinking interplanetary travel would ever happen. That's kind of where I'm at right now. Maybe there's been a civilization or a hundred to travel between stars in our own galaxy, but the feat is so monumental I'm not sure we can just automatically assume they made a magic probe to spread like a virus. Doesn't mean I want to stop looking for signs of the ones who haven't left their home planets, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I don't think that thinking interstellar travel is impossible is the same thing as saying space isn't interesting and/or valuable. You could easily make the case that mining asteroids, maybe some space habitats and offworld refineries would be valuable, and wanting to see manned missions to Mars and unmanned missions everywhere, while still not thinking interplanetary travel would ever happen. I think that's a reasonable view point, although I might argue against it. You're contributing good material imo. There's a world of difference between that, and being an edgelord troll, and I think the guy's rap sheet agrees with me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't actually buy this at all. Human civilization has actually taken a very specific path that wasn't in any way necessary. We could have switched to nuclear power much earlier. We never needed to build a car-centric culture. Those were choices made by our civilization and in part dictated by the completely arbitrary order we happened to make certain scientific discoveries. We triggered the end of the Quaternary way back during the Neolithic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
In 10^1500 years iron stars form
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Why are you even in this thread if you think space is uninteresting and has no value to civilization. Did I say either of those things or are you discounting the possibility the I can believe scientific discoveries are possible in space while also not believing in fictitious little green men Unoriginal Name fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:No, I pretty sincerely believe that the answer to Fermi's Paradox is that space travel is inimical to life and is a net resource negative. We are not leaving and nothing is coming. Enjoy your stay. We're already traveling through space on a spaceship.  It's called Earth
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I don't think that thinking interstellar travel is impossible is the same thing as saying space isn't interesting and/or valuable. You could easily make the case that mining asteroids, maybe some space habitats and offworld refineries would be valuable, and wanting to see manned missions to Mars and unmanned missions everywhere, while still not thinking interplanetary travel would ever happen. Saying interstellar travel (not FTL travel, just slowboating it at some fraction of c) is impossible is just a huge and extraordinary claim that it requires some astronomical levels of evidence that said poster is just not providing. Travelling between stars is perfectly plausible. It's slow, it's dangerous, it would be expensive, but it is hardly impossible and it is self-evidently worthwhile simply from a perspective of expanding the human race across the stars. From a perspective of the time scales involved, of millions of years, there is basically no compelling reason why at least one just one out of every civilization out there or could be out there or was ever out there wouldn't make that decision. If there were a million civilizations that have ever existed, or ever existed, the idea that not even a single one of them upon dominating their planet and having space faring capabilities wouldn't want to have a colony in another star system is improbable and implausible and nigh impossible. There are many logical reasons why you'd want to do it, and simply preserving your species is the big one, and the most important one in case of a gamma ray burst, or asteroid impacts, malevolent outer gods, hostile alien civilizations ideologically driven to cleanse the galaxy of life, errant strange matter, supernova, your own stars eventual collapse, and so on. Then there's other reasons, resource depletion, pollution, nuclear war, etc etc. Ultimately the reason doesn't matter, you gotta look at it from the other end. You just need a single civilization to make the effort, and over 4 billion years it only takes a couple million max to cover the entire galaxy. That's the basis of the Fermi Paradox; explanations that ultimately go on, "space exploration is bad and no civilization would ever do it" are unconvincing. Unoriginal Name posted:Did I say either of those things or are you discounting the possibility the I can believe scientific discoveries are possible in space while also not believing in fictitious little green men The idea that alien life can't exist at all is also an improbable claim. There's like what, 50 million planets minimum in the goldilocks zone capable of supporting carbon based life in the milky way? Unless you're a religious nutjob why wouldn't other life exist and be sentient and have civilizations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
If you're concerned about evidence, I'd like to see on what you're basing the assertion that you can make: -a self replicating probe that can... -travel between stars shielded from radiation -find a suitable planet/at least find it's own ideal landing site -create terraforming robots -generate a food source -synthesize, incubate, raise, protect, feed, and educate human embryos -Work autonomously and on the scale of centuries With 21st century technology. It's a pretty fantastic assertion and sign me up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:If you're concerned about evidence, I'd like to see on what you're basing the assertion that you can make: The 21st century thing is an irrelevant tangent. Is it possible at all, with plausible future technologies? That's the issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:If you're concerned about evidence, I'd like to see on what you're basing the assertion that you can make: In context of Unoriginal Names posts this isn't correct; because he made no relevant statement regarding specifically von neumann probes but space travel to other star systems in general. But lets go over some facts and some of the assumptions to go into the pdf I linked, and what go into von neumann probes. Can we make a spacecraft that can exit the solar system? Yes. We have done so already with the voyager 1. And in fact the simulations run in the pdf research paper I link use the voyager 1 as an example for a minimum ballpark figure that still results in the whole galaxy being saturated; we can theoratically feasibly exceed the voyager 1. Can we make self-replicated robots? Maybe. Theoretically yes; practically we haven't done it yet; but we've made robots and send them to other planets. Going to another planet, say Mars, harvesting all the resources it needs and process them and then fabricate more of itself is not a solved problem, and it is not a trivial problem; but it is not a "Insert Unknown materials science solution here" problem. It is something we could probably be able to do, if we really put our minds to it; it is fundamentally a software problem, and one famous theoretical physicist Michiu Kaku felt pretty confident in as well. We have gone into space, passed the van allen radiation belt; we have plenty of experience in preparing spacecraft and equipment from background radiation and the voyager 1 has left the solar system presumably with some fairly minimal preparation for the trek. If we really put our minds to it with current day technology and materials science, if we get get to mars and if we can get something outside the solar system; I am going to need some charts and poo poo as to what amount of background radiation a spacecraft would expect to interact traveling from Sol to Alpha Centuri and why it wouldn't be able to make the trip with current technology, that needs a citation. So going back to the paper; looking at it from a ballpark way, putting our minds to it, a generational ship manned by human beings can go from one star to another. Being able to settle and eventually terraform something like Mars, we'd probably want to do it with Mars first, and get really confident before making that trip; but if you were here for the Mars Direct discussion I was in earlier in this thread; we can with current technology get to Mars and set up habitats, and much of it with automated construction robots before the first person sets foot there. Given enough time and experience in living on Mars and in large orbital O'Neill Cylinder prototypes and asteroid mining the belt, I don't see it as infeasible that we could make a massive self-propelled O'Neill cylinder and make the trip with mostly "today's technology". I am playing some degree of sleight of hand here with what "todays technology" means; there's a lot of stuff we can do, but is expensive, or haven't had a lot of experience doing; but given a 100 years of practice and testing and experience? I still factor that as "today" much the same way a car from 1920 is still as much a car as 1998 Buick. Generating food can happen in green houses. We only have a small amount of experience in trying to create self-contained ecosystems; but there's tonne of work into that kind of goal already. quote:-synthesize, incubate, raise, protect, feed, and educate human embryos... This is disingenuous, you gotta consider this in the context of the original discussion of the Fermi Paradox and factor in different posters sometimes the same poster within the same post conflating and mixing different concepts together to "nerd out". I think its pretty obvious that this isn't "current day" technology; no one disputes that; its something that could plausibly be something we can do eventually though; it isn't hard to extrapolate current technology and our current understanding of science to "Yeah we can do this"; and thus hypothetically given enough time any sufficiently motivated and advanced space faring civilization could do it. Not that it is exactly what we should do, but it is something we (and aliens) could do and still have the same effect of saturating the entire galaxy in under a million years with millions of independent isolated civilizations. I was not trying to claim that this was a fundamental aspect of a von neumann probe and that this is what could be done today, but in some ways is a lower barrier to entry to spreading your species across the galaxy and isn't an implausible scifi concept like FTL. It's a sucky and boring way of doing it, but it would be an efficient and effective way of doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:The 21st century thing is an irrelevant tangent. Under this context, yes, it's entirely possible. But I think a civilization will need to be at a state much more advanced than ours for a time. I was referring to Raenir Salazar's post on the last page that said "The entire point is you could start an interstellar civilization with just 21st century tech; it wouldn't be very fanciful and possibly quite boring but it would get the job done." I think this is definitely false. quote:This is disingenuous, you gotta consider this in the context of the original discussion of the Fermi Paradox and factor in different posters sometimes the same poster within the same post conflating and mixing different concepts together to "nerd out". I think its pretty obvious that this isn't "current day" technology; no one disputes that; its something that could plausibly be something we can do eventually though; it isn't hard to extrapolate current technology and our current understanding of science to "Yeah we can do this"; and thus hypothetically given enough time any sufficiently motivated and advanced space faring civilization could do it. Not that it is exactly what we should do, but it is something we (and aliens) could do and still have the same effect of saturating the entire galaxy in under a million years with millions of independent isolated civilizations. Yes I'll agree it could, eventually, be done, and would be worth doing. Whether a civilization survives long enough is a big if, of course. I can't pretend to know how many more centuries it would take for us to get to that point, but it's definitely not 21st century, that's all I was saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Saying interstellar travel (not FTL travel, just slowboating it at some fraction of c) is impossible is just a huge and extraordinary claim that it requires some astronomical levels of evidence that said poster is just not providing. It's so monumentally hard, that even if we or other races were able to do it, they might easily decide not to repeat it, or to only rarely repeat it. It's not necessarily a geometric growth pattern where an intelligent race succeeding once would colonize the entire galaxy. If we send humans to all the good stars within 30 ly of Earth, it's easy to imagine that they say "we could have just mined Jupiter and Ganymede instead of Taupiter and Centaurimede" and stop expanding, and never run into other intelligent life. It all depends on if the resources within a solar system end up being effectively infinite (because stars produce so very much energy and you can only need so much), or if they can run out, to the point that more than an entire star and planetary system's worth of stuff will be useful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Black holes are the most efficent generators in the entire universe. Living near one and virtualizing life would allow us ti slow perceived time down and do calculations factors faster than in the base reality. Doing so for 10^700 years allows us to live in a cool universe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Read that. There is in no way the ability of us right now to put together a single machine that does any one of those things exactly as listed, let alone everything, "today." Are they impossible? No. But you're talking about AI decades or centuries past where we are now, not to mention needing to design systems to terraform. Who cares if it can self replicate if we literally don't know yet how to terraform planets (we don't)? We'd need to put that knowledge in the probe. And cloning humans from junk we find around? Again, that's pure fantasy right now, what will we incubate them in until birth etc? There are no robots that could nurse them from birth after that. Etc. etc. It's not 21st century technology. Okay? Any reason it’s a single machine except that makes it easier to talk about in the abstract? It can be a five hundred year set of 50 missions and it functions to the same end result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:It's not at all extraordinary to say interstellar travel is impossible. Yes it is. quote:but building a controllable craft of some kind, capable of doing useful work while it's traveling (to keep itself functional), and also capable of doing useful work once it arrives... we don't know of any technology capable of running for that long without an external power source (which you don't have in interstellar space). Flat What. You realize submarines are basically able to operate under water indefinitely right? This isn't a wholly previously unknown concept? None of this makes any sense or holds up under scrutiny. quote:It's so slow, so dangerous, so expensive, and so difficult that it's also self-evidently plausible that building more stuff near your home star is always the better option. The star will die eventually. Earth could be hit by an asteroid or a gamma ray burst. There could be nuclear war or instability that makes wanting to start fresh on a new world enticing. Etc etc. quote:I don't find "expanding the human race across the stars" to be self-evidently worthwhile if the humans are isolated from each other and will exist thousands or millions of years apart in time, and a whole mess of them are going to die in the attempts. Because you're boring and bland and wholly uninterested in the conversation. quote:It's so monumentally hard, that even if we or other races were able to do it, they might easily decide not to repeat it Holy poo poo the 5th law of thermodynamics of "If you do something one time you can never do it ever again. That's just science. Like going to the moon. quote:or if they can run out, to the point that more than an entire star and planetary system's worth of stuff will be useful. So you've only asserted ideological or cultural reasons. Not scientific reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You realize submarines are basically able to operate under water indefinitely right? This isn't a wholly previously unknown concept? quote:The star will die eventually. quote:So you've only asserted ideological or cultural reasons. Not scientific reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Do you all understand what 10^1500 looks like? Like a nuclear loving sub wouldnt last 10^3 years. Our existence is unrecognizable in 10^5
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:... you realize the nuclear fuel doesn't last forever, and that won't be enough to go for centuries? Even with extra fuel, the components won't last for centuries under that kind of heat and chemical stress? Are you really this dumb. quote:If Earth gets blown up, and humans lived on ten planetary bodies and hundreds/thousands/millions of (large) space stations, this is also a survival scenario. If we're wondering why a bunch of aliens aren't covering every square inch of the universe, it's at least a plausible one. Again, you're presenting this as a physical impossibility and continue to be reaching to ever increasingly strained justifications as to why a technologically advanced civilization wouldn't want to continue pushing boundaries. This is like saying there's no need to research "aeroplanes" because boats and trains have been doing just fine for us for so long. I don't think in such a scenario such an advanced civilization that's clearly broken 1.0 on the Kardeshev Scale would be willing to sit around in one solar system if they had the resources and political will to expand to other systems. This is also ignoring that there may be other intelligent life out there in the universe, or meandering black holes, or other stellar phenomena like the spread of "strange" matter that would annihilate even an entire star system; rogue exoplanets and other risks. Putting all of your eggs in one basket is not intelligent. Again, you didn't use the word "plausible", you talked it up as a physical impossibility, don't change the goalposts without conceding that your original point was dumb. Additionally you're not considering other factors, such as geostrategic, or simply capitalism run amok providing other incentives to going to other solar systems; or perhaps, groups of people deciding that being in the solar system is still however far from Earth or other habitats they may be is still too close. The pilgrims and puritans didn't leave for a different corner of Britain, they went thousands of miles away. The Mormons went to Utah; and many natives got forced into forced migrations across inhospitable terrain onto reserves. There could be political reasons you could not even conceive of that makes it desirable. quote:Well yeah. That's my entire point... ideological/cultural reasons are relevant too. We aren't seeing aliens everywhere, and if the technology is so stupidly obvious, it must be that technology isn't the issue. You continue to apparently not grasp or understand the root concepts at work here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I don't find "expanding the human race across the stars" to be self-evidently worthwhile if the humans are isolated from each other and will exist thousands or millions of years apart in time, and a whole mess of them are going to die in the attempts. You know, people said the same thing about Chris Columbus' voyage to the New World . . .
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:You know, people said the same thing about Chris Columbus' voyage to the New World . . . True in every way except the way you probably intended it. The Anti-Science brigade is out in force again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
It's not extraordinary to say a species to leave their solar system! Happens all the time! Just look at the teeming masses of evidence scattered throughout the observable universe! You filthy anti-science plebeians just dont understand
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:It's not extraordinary to say a species to leave their solar system! Happens all the time! Just look at the teeming masses of evidence scattered throughout the observable universe! Do you have some sort of magic telescope where you have been able to check on these claims? Or are you just making up facts then deciding you are right based on facts you just made up? What planets outside our solar system have we looked at? We didn't even know if there was planets until a few years ago and we still only see them in round about tangential ways, not visually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
I'm going to interrupt the slapfest a bit with a bit of an aside -- what could a space probe use to power itself for 50,000 years? Let's just indulge our speculative engineering minds for a moment and ponder that. It seems like an interesting thought experiment! At the very first brush, what I come up with is a really, really large hunk of some kind of radioactive isotope. Just like a big version of our present radioisotope thermal generators. There are some natural precedents for this concept, such as natural nuclear fission reactors. I don't see why a race that was sufficiently determined couldn't gather together a lot of uranium from the planets, an asteroid belt, etc, and launch a really large deep-space probe powered by this. We know there's naturally-occurring water in deep space as well - perhaps it could replenish its supplies of liquid water coolant/moderator by gathering it passively as it travels through the interstellar medium. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I'm going to interrupt the slapfest a bit with a bit of an aside -- what could a space probe use to power itself for 50,000 years? Let's just indulge our speculative engineering minds for a moment and ponder that. It seems like an interesting thought experiment! If you're moving fast enough a Bussard ramjet becomes a possibility. How to generate the magnetic field and keep it active all that time, and how to utilize the hydrogen? Presumably some kind of fusion, but not anything we've thought of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:At the very first brush, what I come up with is a really, really large hunk of some kind of radioactive isotope. Just like a big version of our present radioisotope thermal generators. A problem I see with that is that most long-lasting radioactive sources are dense and therefore collecting a lot of it would be quite massive, making it that much harder to go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:It's not extraordinary to say a species to leave their solar system! Happens all the time! Just look at the teeming masses of evidence scattered throughout the observable universe! You just like to keep doubling down on the bad faith shitposting. It is extraordinary to claim a species will never leave their solar system and to also claim it is in fact, impossible. FOR EXAMPLE, did you know that NASA expects the Voyager 1 space probe to last 40,000 years? Googling for some hard numbers I see estimates range from hundred of thousands to millions of years. A space probe. Almost all of your attempts to cast your disdain at the topic relied upon the idea that space travel was impossibly dangerous for spacecraft, resulting in their erosion and destruction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You just like to keep doubling down on the bad faith shitposting. I wish the pilot the best of luck
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
Why dont we just store the human genome on diamonds and send 10,000 von neuymann probes via mass drivers to as much of the galaxy as we can? Microsizing the probes is tantamount to our success. Our solar system can hold about 100x more humans that we have on earth. Yes 880b - 1 T humans. We have a gas giant on our doorstep thats cooking metallic hydrogen Imagine the possibilities when we can harvest jupiter. Super structures that are made of the highest pressure metal in the universe. Astroids the size of kansas wouldnt be a match for a metallic hydrogen super-structure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Our solar system can hold about 100x more humans that we have on earth. Yes 880b - 1 T humans. We have a gas giant on our doorstep thats cooking metallic hydrogen Imagine the possibilities when we can harvest jupiter. Super structures that are made of the highest pressure metal in the universe. Astroids the size of kansas wouldnt be a match for a metallic hydrogen super-structure. The numbers really don't hold up here; and your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You just need population growth to outstrip the supply of space structures to create economic and political pressures to send people to other solar systems and for people to want to go there to avoid overpopulation and strife. We have plenty of space on *Earth* right now, yet we still have homeless people. Maybe capitalism and lovely governments are still a thing in the far future and this creates incentive structures you're not accounting for? Never underestimate the simple and petty desire to be as far away as possible from people you don't like and vice versa. Maybe some future authoritarian government creates colony ships just so they can "humanely" gulag its dissidents? Again of course, none of your post addresses the root fact that you just need 1 civilization out of millions to begin a process of ceaseless, endless expansion and the whole galaxy is covered. That there might be reasons to think it may not be an inevitable process for every civilization is no reason and is fairly incredulous to assume that every civilization would be so contented. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 03:16
|
|