|
Kaal posted:All those easily accessible remnants of our society would be used just in the process of rebuilding the society, as I don't think that space colonies is going to be high on the list of priorities for the immediate survivors. It would take many generations to recover, depending on the extent of the catastrophe. If humanity was reduced in population to only a few thousand people around the world, they'd have to go back through an equivalent of the medieval ages, the renaissance, the industrial age, the space age, and then develop that into an even higher level than what we've yet to achieve. All without the untouched stocks of game animals, fishing, wood timber, fresh water, accessible fossil fuels, surface minerals, etc. that have played such a key role in allowing us to get where we are. Recycling simply can't replace that. I think humanity could recover very rapidly; but it would be highly dependent on how educated the survivors are. Knowledge of even just Germ theory and the Haber Process could allow people to have huge families with a much lower infant mortality rate than the medieval or ancient world. All those game animals and natural systems would recover pretty quickly if the humans dropped down to a handful; by the time the population got large enough they would be quite robust again. Nessus posted:While fossil fuels are a fair point, the junkyards wouldn't go anywhere. If humanity was knocked down THAT small it would take thousands of years to rebuild, and presumably there would be ecological adjustments in the process-- including recovery of other animals and plants who are presently outcompeted by humans. If some information was retained, of course, matters could go even quicker. It wouldn't take thousands of years, with proper planning the Earth could be repopulated in 7-8 generations. 200 years tops. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Apr 20, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
Rutibex posted:It wouldn't take thousands of years, with proper planning the Earth could be repopulated in 7-8 generations. 200 years tops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I think humanity could recover very rapidly; but it would be highly dependent on how educated the survivors are. Knowledge of even just Germ theory and the Haber Process could allow people to have huge families with a much lower infant mortality rate than the medieval or ancient world. I think you're either very optimistic or don't know what's involved if you think a post-apocalyptic society has the ability to perform the Haber Process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
vegetables posted:I think you're either very optimistic or don't know what's involved if you think a post-apocalyptic society has the ability to perform the Haber Process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So who's doing the planning? Vandal Savage obviously https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOU-gxc-cZc vegetables posted:I think you're either very optimistic or don't know what's involved if you think a post-apocalyptic society has the ability to perform the Haber Process. Not right away; but then they wouldn't need it right away there would be more than enough land around for slash/burn agriculture for several generations. I don't see why the ancient Romans or Greeks or Chinese couldn't do the Haber Process if they knew how.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
vegetables posted:Wasn't the Chicxulub asteroid something like six miles wide? I don't think a mile-wide one would come close to ending life. While I'm generally glum about humanity's future, I'm quite upbeat about life on Earth's; there's some insanely hardy unicellular stuff that could probably withstand even an atmosphere destroying, mantle-cracking event. Actually wiping out all life would take a surprisingly large amount of energy, I think. Ok well that's fair, by ending all life I meant killing off most humans. The Chicxulub event caused mass extinctions and essentially ended the world as it was known, but life continued and things were essentially back to normal within 100,000 years. I'd counter that at that point we're not really talking about humans any more, but rather whatever species evolve to take our place as apex predators. Nessus posted:While fossil fuels are a fair point, the junkyards wouldn't go anywhere. If humanity was knocked down THAT small it would take thousands of years to rebuild, and presumably there would be ecological adjustments in the process-- including recovery of other animals and plants who are presently outcompeted by humans. If some information was retained, of course, matters could go even quicker. Yes, but if it takes thousands of years to rebuild then all those books and hard drives would have degraded beyond use. Perhaps there'd be some copying going on, but only a small portion of the information would be retained. So that puts us back into the situation where humanity is having to go through all the wasteful trials and tribulations of modernizing a society, but without the resources that we've already used. Timber, for example, was key to urbanization and development throughout Europe since the Classical Era, and yet now accessible stocks have been heavily depleted. The same can be said for peat stocks, which were so key to surviving through the Medieval Era. Each societal era has been presaged by heavy exploitation of a handful of resources, many of which are now depleted as a result - perhaps you are right that humanity would find it possible to carefully navigate a new path to modernity, but it seems more likely to me that they would fall prey to the same mistakes that we've been struggling with for so long. Rutibex posted:I think humanity could recover very rapidly; but it would be highly dependent on how educated the survivors are. Knowledge of even just Germ theory and the Haber Process could allow people to have huge families with a much lower infant mortality rate than the medieval or ancient world. All those game animals and natural systems would recover pretty quickly if the humans dropped down to a handful; by the time the population got large enough they would be quite robust again. It wouldn't take thousands of years, with proper planning the Earth could be repopulated in 7-8 generations. 200 years tops. I'd agree that education and planning has a big impact on how this discussion plays out. Germ theory and sanitation hygiene in particular are good examples of policy concepts that would be very helpful and also likely to be transmitted down the generations. But I'd disagree with your assessment of how quickly it would take for the eco-system to recover from our current situation, much less recovering the human population after a global catastrophe. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Yes, but if it takes thousands of years to rebuild then all those books and hard drives would have degraded beyond use. Perhaps there'd be some copying going on, but only a small portion of the information would be retained. So that puts us back into the situation where humanity is having to go through all the wasteful trials and tribulations of modernizing a society, but without the resources that we've already used. Timber, for example, was key to urbanization and development throughout Europe since the Classical Era, and yet now accessible stocks have been heavily depleted. The same can be said for peat stocks, which were so key to surviving through the Medieval Era. Each societal era has been presaged by heavy exploitation of a handful of resources, many of which are now depleted as a result - perhaps you are right that humanity would find it possible to carefully navigate a new path to modernity, but it seems more likely to me that they would fall prey to the same mistakes that we've been struggling with for so long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Will the human race ever travel outside of the solar system? Probably not. Will humans ever colonize a planet outside of the solar system? Definitely not. Is it possible to indefinitely prolong human lifespans? Probably. Will this technology be available to anyone other than the wealthy? No. I can pretty confidently say that humans will never exist in significant numbers on other planets. We might send a few people to Mars or something, but nothing more than that. While it's probably possible to create large orbiting habitats (like some people have mentioned in this thread), it probably won't ever happen. Biological science, however, will probably progress to a point where death of old age can be avoided. There have been many advances in the field of genetics, and there's probably no reason why we can't engineer ourselves out of aging. But like I said this will probably only be available to the very wealthy (as will living in space, if that ever happens). Future advances in science/technology probably strengthen the gap between the wealthy and poor more than they'll shrink it. In the past, it was at least possible for people to rebel against and kill the rich if they abused their position too much, but in the present the wealthy can freely travel and easily avoid the repercussions of their actions. Mass media also makes it easier to manipulate public opinion in such a way that people focus their anger at other targets (such as other poor people of a different ethnic/cultural background).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Well I think that pretty much wraps up all human discourse then. In conclusion: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Future advances in science/technology probably strengthen the gap between the wealthy and poor more than they'll shrink it. In the past, it was at least possible for people to rebel against and kill the rich if they abused their position too much, but in the present the wealthy can freely travel and easily avoid the repercussions of their actions. Mass media also makes it easier to manipulate public opinion in such a way that people focus their anger at other targets (such as other poor people of a different ethnic/cultural background). On the subject of the thread: gently caress space, colonize Earth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Will the human race ever travel outside of the solar system? Probably not. I can get what you are saying; but given that even within your own hypothetical you don't discuss any kind of end to humanity... Is it not possible that if you look ahead even further the space-rich will have propagated and their children will eventually form a new class of (even if it is merely relative to their uber-rich peers) space-poors? After that it is just a matter of semantics between "significant" numbers of people farting around in space and "insignificant" ones. I guess the issue is you are using the word never here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:I can get what you are saying; but given that even within your own hypothetical you don't discuss any kind of end to humanity... Is it not possible that if you look ahead even further the space-rich will have propagated and their children will eventually form a new class of (even if it is merely relative to their uber-rich peers) space-poors? After that it is just a matter of semantics between "significant" numbers of people farting around in space and "insignificant" ones. I guess the issue is you are using the word never here. In a highly automated spacefaring future, the idea that poor people would be kept alive and provided with food and oxygen is laughable. There are no Wal-Mart greeters in space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In a highly automated spacefaring future, the idea that poor people would be kept alive and provided with food and oxygen is laughable. There are no Wal-Mart greeters in space. In such a society there wouldn't even be money to begin with; it would lose absolutely all meaning and purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In a highly automated spacefaring future, the idea that poor people would be kept alive and provided with food and oxygen is laughable. There are no Wal-Mart greeters in space. But if you kill off the poor, the less rich just become the new poor in a never-ending cycle! drat you spacepoors, will we never be free of you? Cerebral Bore posted:There is a slght difference between sending some dudes up in a rocket and starting up what would be the overwhelmingly most challenging and expensive project of engineering in human history. Nobody would do that while there's still a better RoI for the equivalent amount of resources back on earth unless we're talking some kinda Space Race-esque prestige project. America's space program has historically had a pretty good RoI both in tangibles and intangibles, but I'll agree that going straight for an extraterrestrial colony is not the best way to be spending our spacebux at the moment. I was just assuming any talk of colonization was assuming we'd already spent decades(centuries?) doing all the steps that are likely between 'Space Station' and 'Self-sufficient Off-world Colony'. Gotta fill in that tech tree. I maintain that we're likely to achieve any or most technological goals given enough time. Peace on Earth and good will toward men? Eeeh, we have a lovely track record with that and I don't really see it changing so we might as well keep on keeping on with that space thing while we continue to be assholes. If nothing else working on how to survive in the harsh environment of space will certainly give us a leg up on how to survive our own planet after we gently caress it all up even more. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:None of those things is novel. This is just the same "We're all doomed! Trust us the world really is ending this time!" crap every generation comes up with to prove that they're better than whatever comes next. Yeah, it's really pretty loving monotonous. It's like the people who always hope that some new sci-fi program or movie is gonna be like Firefly, except I suppose the grim projection of economic inequality into the future is preferable to Joss Whedon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
The space-faring future of all henceforth existing society is the future of class struggle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Hopefully we never get to spread our horrible species to the rest of the universe. The heat death of the universe awaits us in any case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Kaal posted:All those easily accessible remnants of our society would be used just in the process of rebuilding the society, as I don't think that space colonies is going to be high on the list of priorities for the immediate survivors. It would take many generations to recover, depending on the extent of the catastrophe. If humanity was reduced in population to only a few thousand people around the world, they'd have to go back through an equivalent of the medieval ages, the renaissance, the industrial age, the space age, and then develop that into an even higher level than what we've yet to achieve. All without the untouched stocks of game animals, fishing, wood timber, fresh water, accessible fossil fuels, surface minerals, etc. that have played such a key role in allowing us to get where we are. Recycling simply can't replace that. Lack of fossil fuels may be a problem, but we have no way to know if they are really necessary to bring the civilization development to the current level. They were the cheapest and the most effective energy source available in 19th and 20th century, so we learned how to use them and neglected everything else. Only when we realized it's far from a perfect solution, we started to explore alternative paths - and our civilization in the meantime grew to the point where switching to them became very hard. Theoretically, the Sun supplies all the energy our civilization needs. It's possible that, if we hadn't had access to coal, oil and gas, we could have reached the current level of development starting maybe from biofuels and developing wind, solar and nuclear power more. It would be much slower, without the explosive growth of the Industrial Revolution and Green Revolution, but it's not impossible to imagine something like this happening in the span of 500 years (or a millenium). The Sun isn't going to make the world uninhabitable at least in several millions of years, it's not that we don't have a lot of time to try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Lack of fossil fuels may be a problem, but we have no way to know if they are really necessary to bring the civilization development to the current level. They were the cheapest and the most effective energy source available in 19th and 20th century, so we learned how to use them and neglected everything else. Only when we realized it's far from a perfect solution, we started to explore alternative paths - and our civilization in the meantime grew to the point where switching to them became very hard. It'll be a little under 600 million years before we have to worry about a lack of CO2 killing off all leafy plants on Earth, so you've got plenty of time to fantasize about shooting your neighbors for batteries or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Honestly the biggest impediment to the blue-sky research that might allow us meaningful space travel is capitalism. The more social/economic/political power a small elite have, the less of a priority non short term profitable research becomes and the fewer potentially 'great thinkers' get the opportunity to excel. Space colonisation basically depends on two things, the first is that we slow down how quickly we are loving absolutely everything up. If inherited industrialists, for-profit pharmaceuticals, social controllers and weapon manufacturers keep their political power then one way or another that will accelerate the point-of-no-return to too soon. The second is that at least some part of humanity has multiple concurrent generations of fully supplied non-profit-led research. The the-rich-escape story people are suggesting just won't happen. They won't care until it's their own children that won't have an earth, and then they'll choose daddy's mate as a contractor who will gently caress up building the shuttles anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Lack of fossil fuels may be a problem, but we have no way to know if they are really necessary to bring the civilization development to the current level. They were the cheapest and the most effective energy source available in 19th and 20th century, so we learned how to use them and neglected everything else. Only when we realized it's far from a perfect solution, we started to explore alternative paths - and our civilization in the meantime grew to the point where switching to them became very hard. It's also possible to imagine that without the catalysis of fossil fuels, large mammals, timber stocks, and accessible minerals, the human population would simply continue its 50,000 year tradition of subsistence agriculture and clannish disorganization that has been so briefly interrupted by our 500 year experiment in modernization. Kaal fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
I too believe that the far future of humanity is going to be defined by early 21st century socioeconomic divides.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's also possible to imagine that without the catalysis of fossil fuels, large mammals, timber stocks, and accessible minerals, the human population would simply continue its 50,000 year tradition of subsistence agriculture and clannish disorganization that has been so briefly interrupted by our 500 year experiment in modernization. Yes, I imagine without three of the largest culturally defining parts of civilization for the past 5000 years humanity might develop slightly differently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I too believe that the far future of humanity is going to be defined by early 21st century socioeconomic divides. Right now we're approaching 19th century socioeconomic divides though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's also possible to imagine that without the catalysis of fossil fuels, large mammals, timber stocks, and accessible minerals, the human population would simply continue its 50,000 year tradition of subsistence agriculture and clannish disorganization that has been so briefly interrupted by our 500 year experiment in modernization. Yes, but again - it's not falsifiable. We know too little about development of industrial civilizations, given that we only observed one in specific circumstances and we have no way to check that, especially with the timescale involved. Given that evolution seems to be selecting towards forms that overall increase entropy faster, I would be surprised if humanity managed to stay in pre-ancient society for even one million of years. Provided we don't go extinct during this time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Honestly the biggest impediment to the blue-sky research that might allow us meaningful space travel is capitalism. The more social/economic/political power a small elite have, the less of a priority non short term profitable research becomes and the fewer potentially 'great thinkers' get the opportunity to excel. How do you reconcile this with the Soviet Union losing the space race?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:How do you reconcile this with the Soviet Union losing the space race? They got to space first, they literally won the space race. Unless you move the goal posts back and put them on the moon and then only allow points for human contact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:They got to space first, they literally won the space race. Unless you move the goal posts back and put them on the moon and then only allow points for human contact. The Nazis got to space first, as they were the first to launch an object into space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:They got to space first, they literally won the space race. Unless you move the goal posts back and put them on the moon and then only allow points for human contact. Also, last I checked NASA wasn't a for profit enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
The assumption that space colonization is impossible a bit parochial, at least in the sense that it suggests that human society is so inflexible that it will either look exactly like it does now or go extinct. 200 years ago human communication could move no faster then a person could walk with a message, ride a horse or sail on a ship, yet now the vast majority of the people on the planet can communicate instantaneously. It is not like we have to be worshipfully awaiting the singularity to accept that technology has shifted our society in unpredictable ways and will continue to do so. As for global catastrophes making space colonization impossible, the only thing that would seem to have the potential to end all human life would be a large asteroid or interstellar object, which could also be defended against by funding space programs. If anything it would seem this threat would be a spur for our capacities to utilize and explore space to improve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Barlow posted:The assumption that space colonization is impossible a bit parochial, at least in the sense that it suggests that human society is so inflexible that it will either look exactly like it does now or go extinct. Colonizing space doesn't solve any problems though. Anything you could build on Mars you could build for 1% the cost in Antarctica or on top of Mt Everest where it would be relatively accessible and maybe serve a purpose. If anyone ever figures out a way to build a giant self-sustaining city in space maybe they should use that knowledge to build one in Nebraska instead. The second you figure out a way to actually make a space colony work that doesn't involve magic rocks you've solved the problems that have plagued terrestrial cities for 5,000 years. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Barlow posted:The assumption that space colonization is impossible a bit parochial, at least in the sense that it suggests that human society is so inflexible that it will either look exactly like it does now or go extinct. 200 years ago human communication could move no faster then a person could walk with a message, ride a horse or sail on a ship, yet now the vast majority of the people on the planet can communicate instantaneously. It is not like we have to be worshipfully awaiting the singularity to accept that technology has shifted our society in unpredictable ways and will continue to do so. Don't forget GRBs, false vacuum collapse, total existence failure, and all the KKVs that every alien civilization is certainly constantly constructing and firing off at every other civilization. If nerds on the internet have taught me anything it's that the only real solution to all life's problems is for everyone to just up and kill themselves right now because they're not as smart as I am. Rent-A-Cop posted:It isn't impossible. I'm sure if you threw the entire GDP of the planet at the problem for a decade or so you could work most of the kinks out. Yeah totally, I mean, what's the point in trying to do this thing that might help us figure out solutions to problems on Earth in the process of figuring out how to do it? What we should be doing is solving problems on Earth, not solving problems on Earth. Ernie Muppari fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Colonizing space doesn't solve any problems though. Anything you could build on Mars you could build for 1% the cost in Antarctica or on top of Mt Everest where it would be relatively accessible and maybe serve a purpose. If anyone ever figures out a way to build a giant self-sustaining city in space maybe they should use that knowledge to build one in Nebraska instead. The second you figure out a way to actually make a space colony work that doesn't involve magic rocks you've solved the problems that have plagued terrestrial cities for 5,000 years. Yeah but Nebraska doesn't have hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of untapped mineral wealth. If we did space colonization, it'd be because we were pursuing the massive resources that are available in the asteroids and planetoids that are in our solar system - not a housing project.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Barlow posted:The assumption that space colonization is impossible a bit parochial, at least in the sense that it suggests that human society is so inflexible that it will either look exactly like it does now or go extinct. Sure but in that vain we might assume we'll someday be living in underwater cities or giant zeppelins. With society such as it is now space colonies that are more than tiny tourist resorts or research stations are equally as unlikely as underwater cities for the forseeable future. Actually when people talk about basing a space economy on resource extraction you could make the same argument about mining towns on the bottom of the sea. It would be wildly impractical but a lot cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Sure but in that vain we might assume we'll someday be living in underwater cities or giant zeppelins. With society such as it is now space colonies that are more than tiny tourist resorts or research stations are equally as unlikely as underwater cities for the forseeable future. Anyway I took the liberty of preparing some aids for future editions of this conversation: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Yeah but Nebraska doesn't have hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of untapped mineral wealth. If we did space colonization, it'd be because we were pursuing the massive resources that are available in the asteroids and planetoids that are in our solar system - not a housing project. You have to be careful with that though because it can lead to a global Dutch disease. Also, if you reach the point where ferrying people into space, gathering rocks off world, and getting them back safely is cheaper than whatever method is available on Earth, you're probably better off just increasing your efficiency for use of those materials (or even just switching off them all together).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You have to be careful with that though because it can lead to a global Dutch disease. I think the people who were with James Cameron were discussing making telescopes, then possibly creating water caches for NASA missions, and also looking for rare-earth minerals and the like on near-earth asteroids. I don't think we're likely to go the way Colonial Spain did just because rare-earth minerals became much less... rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Dutch disease like how? Maybe Dutch disease isn't the exact term but basically if you bring in a bunch of metal worth $20 trillion at once or even in a short-ish timeframe you're going to make some ripples in the global economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You do have the possible issue of the minerals present there. Many asteroids do seem to have a lot of precious metals in them (which are also industrially useful). You're missing a "We Cannot Afford a Kinetic Kill Vehicle Gap!" square.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You have to be careful with that though because it can lead to a global Dutch disease.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:05
|
|