|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:How can you prepare for aliens if you don’t know what they’ll be like? Bigger bombs kill bigger threats so basically just keep building bigger bombs to maximise chances. We should always be pushing forward that edge of how much stuff we can blow up per bomb
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
I won't feel safe until all humanity resides in a controlled pocket universe
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 03:30
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:I won't feel safe until all humanity resides in a controlled pocket universe From what I have learned from playing The Sims this should be of no comfort to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't mention that I'm the one controlling it, and I'm not in there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:How can you prepare for aliens if you don’t know what they’ll be like? To be utterly technical, that's kinda the problem of the individual colonies in question who due to the distances involved will have to fend for themselves or rely on "help" only arriving centuries later. The goal actually is just have so many colonies spread out over so many star systems that it ultimately doesn't matter what the outcome is; if they gently caress it up everyone else on every other world is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:i completely agree but that’s also 100% on purpose Hard agree that it’s entirely deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:To be utterly technical, that's kinda the problem of the individual colonies in question who due to the distances involved will have to fend for themselves or rely on "help" only arriving centuries later. Phil Torres actually writes (peer reviewed article here) about potential existential risks from the concept of "maximum galactic colonization". The thesis, summed up, is that over galactic timescales, human successor civilizations could diverge so greatly from each other as to no longer recognize each other as legitimately human. Under a "galactic anarchy" political calculus, then, it becomes expedient for them to therefore hedge off existential risks to themselves by taking out all others. This would lead to a situation where interstellar wars of annihilation could prevail, becoming an existential risk in and of itself. What do you think about this idea? Personally I find it an intriguing hypothesis, since he rightly addresses that true interstellar cohesive polities will be impossible given the lack of FTL and the vast genetic and social divergences that could emerge as colonization proliferates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Phil Torres actually writes (peer reviewed article here) about potential existential risks from the concept of "maximum galactic colonization". The thesis, summed up, is that over galactic timescales, human successor civilizations could diverge so greatly from each other as to no longer recognize each other as legitimately human. Under a "galactic anarchy" political calculus, then, it becomes expedient for them to therefore hedge off existential risks to themselves by taking out all others. This would lead to a situation where interstellar wars of annihilation could prevail, becoming an existential risk in and of itself. I love it because it parallels evolution and speciation. Ultimately yeah I figure it will happen; but from the standpoint of I guess our "genus" surviving I guess its fine? I was never going to live to see it anyways so it isn't my problem. I feel like the paper about solutions to the fermi paradox where there's these pockets of "dead space" with isolated pockets of civilization comes into play; I think its unlikely on galactic scales of physical distance and time for such attempts to completely succeed; in either case we've kicked the can down the road and its up to them to figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 06:11
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:That's exactly what my hypothetical aliens would say.... You got me. I am a hypothetical alien
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 07:20
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Phil Torres actually writes (peer reviewed article here) about potential existential risks from the concept of "maximum galactic colonization". The thesis, summed up, is that over galactic timescales, human successor civilizations could diverge so greatly from each other as to no longer recognize each other as legitimately human. Under a "galactic anarchy" political calculus, then, it becomes expedient for them to therefore hedge off existential risks to themselves by taking out all others. This would lead to a situation where interstellar wars of annihilation could prevail, becoming an existential risk in and of itself. i don't find it particularly compelling, especially if you accept (rightly so in my opinion) that ftl is a physical impossibility. if interstellar travel of humans is ever possible, the energy and time constraints seem like they would be prohibitive. even if you could design and build a generation ship, sleeper ship, or ship full of robots, or whatever, how could you ever scrape together enough ships capable of crossing that distance in numbers that would overcome a fleet of local ships that didn't have to invest resources into things like expanded fuel capacity, self repair and life support? how could you sustain the conflict when the most local of movements would take decades or centuries and anything beyond that begins to take millennia? why is divergence from same species to same genus supposed to be a significant marker when humans have already waged wars of annihilation at multiple points in our history? ultimately the concept of a policy of the preemptive annihilation of an opponent who represents a possible existential threat is something we dealt with during the cold war and is a specter that still looms over the world today. i don't see how giving the human race access to the effectively infinite resources and elbow room of interstellar space would make it worse than it is now
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 07:44
|
|
|
on the topic of speciation, I think Davidson's 'Radical Interpretation' is relevant. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42968535 Sorta related to the Turing Test; basically, any two humans from any point in history could be plucked out of time, put around the same campfire, and - if they do not kill each-other - they will develop a pidgin language. And while with aliens we have to explore possibilities that the communication occurs through chemicals or light or whatever, the principle still applies. That Star Trek episode is kinda related. Or Enemy Mine. But with humans speciating on different colonies, there's still the basic language infrastructure and mechanisms, so they'll never drift so far apart that radical interpration is impossible. This can be a force that moves populations away from agression.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 08:11
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:i don't find it particularly compelling, especially if you accept (rightly so in my opinion) that ftl is a physical impossibility. if interstellar travel of humans is ever possible, the energy and time constraints seem like they would be prohibitive. even if you could design and build a generation ship, sleeper ship, or ship full of robots, or whatever, how could you ever scrape together enough ships capable of crossing that distance in numbers that would overcome a fleet of local ships that didn't have to invest resources into things like expanded fuel capacity, self repair and life support? how could you sustain the conflict when the most local of movements would take decades or centuries and anything beyond that begins to take millennia? why is divergence from same species to same genus supposed to be a significant marker when humans have already waged wars of annihilation at multiple points in our history? ultimately the concept of a policy of the preemptive annihilation of an opponent who represents a possible existential threat is something we dealt with during the cold war and is a specter that still looms over the world today. i don't see how giving the human race access to the effectively infinite resources and elbow room of interstellar space would make it worse than it is now If we suspect that such civilizations might develop relativistic weapons. (Project Rho is a neat website because they also tend to Show Their Work and DId The Math) Such weapons if they could be aimed accurately would be basically perfect First Strike weapons. So you can have civilizations clustered together firing off rounds at each other and wiping each other out or significantly crippling each other even if some fraction of the rounds fired miss. Similarly you could fire off swarms of automated von neumann probes, which attempt to basically "eat" any successor civilization not advanced enough to fend it off; and if it is send a signal back marking this civilization for sterner measures; we're talking about civilizations who have figured out how to possibly live and organize and contextualize/internalize themselves on vastly different time scales; perhaps through the use of hyperintelligent AI, or a elite ruling class experiencing and ruling from ships traveling on relativistic spacecraft experiencing time dillation providing a guiding hand. Like at this point we're talking about a time period what, 10,000 years in the future, 25,000 years? 50,000? A lot of the logistics and details going to be impossible for us to even barely begin to imagine how things would work. Without some kind of FTL though I think the first half of the premise is unobjectionable; without some completely radically different way as a society in how they relate to time; a no polity will be able to exist with their worlds probably larger than a relative handful of light years apart from each other due to the lag in communication stretching years and years if not decades; and people without close constant contact will experience massive cultural, societal, and linguistic drift as a minimum. I think its less certain especially on a 10 to 50 thousand year timespan for humans to physically significantly change as to be unrecognizable to each other but I think culturally they'll be very unrecognizable in a relatively short amount of time. They might be able to have maintained records and data from Earth from the moment they left but not anything more than a minor spec of anything that happened after they left once the lightspeed lag for updates gets too large. Maybe there's a way ahead of time to try to set up some common basic protocols to insure communication and some minimal level of interaction; kind of like an IFF signal that everyone maintains so everyone recognizes everyone has being descendents of terra, etc. But this is very speculative; odds are we just end up with millions of different standards! This sort of linguistic and cultural drift, where each successor "civilization" eventually splits and "reproduces" and sends out their own colony ships which themselves cascade outwards I think its very reasonable half of that proposal. The other half, could one of them get angry enough to decide to wipe out everyone else, for say religious reasons, what if they see themselves as the true successors of humanity and everyone else are heretics. I think it isn't impossible if relativistic weapons are possible; plus the fact if we assume a galaxy that's being colonized via what are essentially manned von neumann probes (and some unmanned ones to do terraforming); then its possible they could repurpose those as weapons that would manufacture weapons to wipe out civilizations in situ. Uglycat posted:on the topic of speciation, I think Davidson's 'Radical Interpretation' is relevant. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42968535 This is interesting; maybe along with some foresight and preplanning to keep some sort of universal protocol active it can keep people from acting violently if they happen on each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Looks like Curiosity's been detecting methane "burps" lately! Interesting.quote:https://www.livescience.com/curiosity-finds-alien-methane-source.html'Alien burp' may have been detected by NASA's Curiosity rover
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Phil Torres actually writes (peer reviewed article here) about potential existential risks from the concept of "maximum galactic colonization". The thesis, summed up, is that over galactic timescales, human successor civilizations could diverge so greatly from each other as to no longer recognize each other as legitimately human. Under a "galactic anarchy" political calculus, then, it becomes expedient for them to therefore hedge off existential risks to themselves by taking out all others. This would lead to a situation where interstellar wars of annihilation could prevail, becoming an existential risk in and of itself. My personal opinion on this matter is that every species without the restraint necessary to not do this will wipe themselves out before ever becoming an interstellar civilization, so this situation will never occur.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Libluini posted:My personal opinion on this matter is that every species without the restraint necessary to not do this will wipe themselves out before ever becoming an interstellar civilization, so this situation will never occur. That's kind of the thing, though, right? Like over galactic timescales, the "restraint" inherent to a given offshoot civilization might itself be evolved away through simple cultural or genetic drift. And since it would only take one for one of the successor civilizations to become hostile, the risk over a long timespan becomes greater.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:That's kind of the thing, though, right? Like over galactic timescales, the "restraint" inherent to a given offshoot civilization might itself be evolved away through simple cultural or genetic drift. And since it would only take one for one of the successor civilizations to become hostile, the risk over a long timespan becomes greater. Each civilization would need to do that or become so far removed because otherwise they could just join up against the one or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:That's kind of the thing, though, right? Like over galactic timescales, the "restraint" inherent to a given offshoot civilization might itself be evolved away through simple cultural or genetic drift. And since it would only take one for one of the successor civilizations to become hostile, the risk over a long timespan becomes greater. Like with every species which evolves a fatal flaw, they then would wipe themselves out
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
You just need one
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
Why did Jeff Bezo's launch not get as much attention as Richard Branson's even though Bezo's launch was higher? Branson says he was not racing Jeff Bezo's to space despite Bezo launching 9 days later (https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-richard-branson-not-racing-jeff-bezos-space-today-show). So its just a coincidence that Bezo launched 9 days later?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:Why did Jeff Bezo's launch not get as much attention as Richard Branson's even though Bezo's launch was higher? Branson says he was not racing Jeff Bezo's to space despite Bezo launching 9 days later (https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-richard-branson-not-racing-jeff-bezos-space-today-show). Of course it was a race... Space 2.0 'Rich cunts edition'
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:Why did Jeff Bezo's launch not get as much attention as Richard Branson's even though Bezo's launch was higher? Branson says he was not racing Jeff Bezo's to space despite Bezo launching 9 days later (https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-richard-branson-not-racing-jeff-bezos-space-today-show). I just think it's funny that thanks to Branson's launch editors are in the "willing to accept maybe Billionaires in space is bad?" editorials right in time for Bezo's launch, perfect timing of a news cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:Why did Jeff Bezo's launch not get as much attention as Richard Branson's even though Bezo's launch was higher? Branson says he was not racing Jeff Bezo's to space despite Bezo launching 9 days later (https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-richard-branson-not-racing-jeff-bezos-space-today-show). I think virgin galactic is more “serious” than blue origin. Like they both exist but Branson seems to have a real history as a real legitimate space company and blue origin seems way more “rich guy screwing around”
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Bezos rocket couldn't have been more phallic if he'd tried
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:Why did Jeff Bezo's launch not get as much attention as Richard Branson's even though Bezo's launch was higher? Branson says he was not racing Jeff Bezo's to space despite Bezo launching 9 days later (https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-richard-branson-not-racing-jeff-bezos-space-today-show). There was just nothing novel about what Bezos did. Branson already did the space tourism part and technologically BO is a decade behind SpaceX/Musk. Everyone is also probably tired of reading about billionaires in space already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
Doesn't matter when you got the kind of money to keep you in the news against all reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
Don't worry, I'm sure the Washington Post will cover it in great detail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
It is my humble belief that space should be available for all, not the privileged few.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:It is my humble belief that space should be available for all, not the privileged few. Be careful what you wish for, we’ll probably all end up getting shipped off to the lunar prison colony
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Be careful what you wish for, we’ll probably all end up getting shipped off to the lunar prison colony Careful, that's how you end up with a bunch of pissed of people that just live on the moon, and then they start chucking rocks down the gravity well because they've been Earth's penal colony for a few generations. That and sentient general AI are big worries with any moon colony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Careful, that's how you end up with a bunch of pissed of people that just live on the moon, and then they start chucking rocks down the gravity well because they've been Earth's penal colony for a few generations. Surely the Moon would be a kind and gentle mistress?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
You should be very concerned what rednecks on the moon would get up to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:There was just nothing novel about what Bezos did. Branson already did the space tourism part and technologically BO is a decade behind SpaceX/Musk. Everyone is also probably tired of reading about billionaires in space already. Yeah, that's one of the aspects that's confused me about the "innovation is good, even if it's driven by wasteful billionaires" discourse. We already had a private company launching things and people into space, and indeed into orbit. Say what you will about Musk in general, but his company actually accomplishes useful things from time to time rather than shooting rich people very high up for a few minutes, and has made innovations in some aspects of the process. Virgin Galactic is somewhat intriguing because it provides the possibility of a new-ish launch technique* -- which could eventually develop into something useful even if it's not truly impressive right now -- but BO is, in all senses, a dick-waving thing. * Wasn't there at least one experimental plane that got dropped by a B-52 in a similar fashion? Or am I making that up? EDIT: Looked it up, the X-15 among others did this, and the X-15 reached 107.8km in contrast to VG's 86km. So, eh... yeah, not a lot of new ground being broken here. PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jul 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:It is my humble belief that space should be available for all, not the privileged few. Agreed.  Although nowadays I'd put in "humanity" instead of mankind, but it's the thought that counts!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, that's one of the aspects that's confused me about the "innovation is good, even if it's driven by wasteful billionaires" discourse. Is it possible that what they're doing could make it cheaper through economies of scale and use?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
I mean I would rather Musk have competition than not and despite Musk I support SpaceX so I guess in a roundabout way I'm ok with BO and VG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:I mean I would rather Musk have competition than not and despite Musk I support SpaceX so I guess in a roundabout way I'm ok with BO and VG. Musk's competition is Boeing and other actual launch capable groups like Electron . BO and VG are not even capable of basic orbital launchers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Musk's competition is Boeing and other actual launch capable groups like Electron . BO and VG are not even capable of basic orbital launchers. Boeing has done one launch and hosed the orbit up. I'm not saying you are wrong, but they really aren't all that ahead of BO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is it possible that what they're doing could make it cheaper through economies of scale and use? Space planes are generally considered a deadend in terms of space exploration. There is no commercial interest in them anymore. Branson's glider isn't even particularly ambitious or technologically sophisticated. It's a tiny space yacht for joy rides. As commie said, SpaceX is a gigantic, innovative and very successful company that is slowly monopolizing the launch industry and outcompeting Boing& Co. BO and VG are in a totally different league. IRC BO has the New Glenn launch system in development which could be competitive, but at the pace they are moving I would be surprised if it's ready before 2030. If Starship is flying regularly by then it's gonna be dead on arrival anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:It is my humble belief that space should be available for all, not the privileged few. Abracadabra, your wish is granted! Now the vast majority of humanity is forced to live in mining stations in the asteroid belt, producing materials in harsh and squalid conditions, to be sent back to the privileged few who live in the comfort of a gravity well. Welcome to The Expanse!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
D-Pad posted:Boeing has done one launch and hosed the orbit up. I'm not saying you are wrong, but they really aren't all that ahead of BO. Getting to orbit and loving it up is significantly further than "Sub orbital ballistic trajectory" And Boeing has been building successful rockets since the 1950s. Worth noting that ULA is Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and they are far from a failed space venture. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jul 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 22:32
|
|