Why We Need to Expand into Space 460
Zentropa writes "Why do humans need to explore and colonize space? To save the planet and our species, argues an opinion piece in Cosmos, an Aussie science magazine. It makes some good points from an angle you may not have previously considered; for example, it's in the universe's best interest to keep us around. We make things fun. 'So what if humans pass into history? It's not just a tragedy for us, but also one for nature. Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach. As the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan once said, "we are a way for the universe to know itself". But we also deserve to continue because we have created things greater than ourselves. Not only scientific and engineering knowledge, valuable as this is -- we have also created new and beautiful ways to see the world through art, music, literature and performance.'"
Get some perspective (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, seeing our Art as something 'bigger than us' seems strange to me. All of our Art forms are so tied to the way the human visual, auditory, language and memory systems work I doubt they'd be of any value to a non-human.
Entropy is increasing, the eons are closing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Humanity will also never occupy more than a tiny corner of the universe, as most of it is just too damn far away to be accessible. No matter what we do, our effects will be "local". Thus, we as a species should do what is best for ourselves (and for any other intelligences we may encounter, if we ever do) and our living conditions and not worry about "what the universe thinks", because if it thinks at all, it sure isn't thinking about US.
Mal-2
Babylon 5 (Score:5, Insightful)
we are also (Score:0, Insightful)
Sure we have produced incredible works of art and science, but in truth, that's been created by only 0.0001% of the population; the rest does nothing but eat, shit and fuck. And consume just like pigs.
We do NOT live in harmony with our environment, we like to use it and abuse it then move to another place. We claim to possess superior intelligence yet we like to torture and lie and kill to get what we want.
No other animal does such things. Therefore, the judgment on humanity is still not out yet.
Re:Get some perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, to be more concise, I disagree.
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tragedy for nature? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nature doesn't care the least bit if someone witnesses its infinite beauty (which is a purely human term anyway; not the nature is beauty, but nature, or rather some part of it, fits our perception of beautiness). It doesn't care if we thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach. Nature has no wishes, no feelings and no desire. It also doesn't exist for a particular purpose (least of all, for the purpose of being considered beautiful). It just is. Not more, not less.
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither. Humans are completely irrelevant, as far as the universe as a whole is concerned.
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another thing which I find silly, is the tendency to view ourselves distinct and separate from the universe no matter what. Of course it's good to abstract the rest of the world as separate from us when going about your everyday business. However, when dealing with universal notions, such as humanity's relationship to the universe, we should acknowledge that humanity is just a property of the universe, a physical manifestation of the laws governing the cosmos.
The universe cannot care whether we colonize the space or not. On the other hand - space colonization is the obvious thing for us to do, due to our very nature. Expanding and filling all the available space and exploring the unknown is what we have always done, no reason to stop now.
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why must we be either a benefit or a detriment?
From my point of view, only living things can perceive a detriment and a benefit. With that assumption, what in the universe would care if we blow up a planet on the other side of our galaxy.
For all I know, the universe doesn't care if we blow up everything there is, since atoms do not bother. Our race would be a detriment/benefit to other civilizations, however, if such will ever exist within our reach. But then we must first prove that alien life exists, get over there and influence it. Only then can we know for sure.
Until "that" day, we are neither a benefit or a detriment, because a particle is feeling just fine regardless of what we do to it.
the ole geek pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Now mod me down for goring the sacred calf.
Enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they raise geeks on shitty, whiny junior high poetry instead of Heinlein and Asimov now?! Damn! Moving forward into space doesn't have fuck to do with GOD or the "meaning of life". It's the next goddamn step. You all of you whiney bitches saying "oh, what's the point... humans are sooo terrible" are just refusing to help because you're to damned selfish. Selfish because you don't think your children, or your neighbors children, or anybody's grandchildren should get the same thrill you did when you first saw the Shuttle take off in grade school. Or the first moon landing. Or the first manned orbit. Or the first mother fucking flint scraper.
What assholes. No wonder you don't want the human race to expand into outer space -- you assume we are all just like you! Fine. Stay in Middle Ages Europe, afraid to fall of edge of the fucking planet. Yeah, it's hard. Life is hard. Get used to it. But ruin it for everyone else -- even in the future -- by not even trying? Pathetic.
I wonder why Carmack or even Branson are so interested? Oh wait, they must be "god freaks" or idiotic enough to believe that we are eternal as a species and there will be no Big Rip, Big Crunch whatever according to 90% of these posts. It sure as hell isn't gonna make them money while they are alive.
THIS is slashdot? If the human race goes out like a punk, I'm blaming all of you.
--
It's about time I earned some negative points. Fuck.
Lack of understanding of population biology? (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I'm understanding correctly, his proposal is that after the Earth is 'full' at some optimal value x, any excess population is then shipped off into space?
Since the world population http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop [ibiblio.org] has a net increase of about 2 or 3 people per second, or about 200000 people a day, he just needs to figure out how to build enough starships to ship 200000 people offworld every day.
SpaceX believes that $500 per pound to orbit is achieveable http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=10 [spacex.com]. Assuming each of those 200000 people weighs an average of 150 lbs (and ignoring things like, oh, I dunno, air, water, food, and habitable space), his proposal would be expending $15,000,000,000 per day, forever, to keep the population of Earth at some optimal number.
Now, I'm all for keeping an open mind about spreading humanity's risk of complete annhilation by spreading to other planets if possible, but to use the argument that this will solve Earth's putative population problem seems...flawed.
Re:the ole geek pipe dream (Score:1, Insightful)
There is a world market of at most 5 computers.
We have colonized lots of parts of planet earth that are inhospitable to humans without technology. Where I live, in sweden (60 deg N), it can be down to -30 degree C in the winter and noone would survive without technology. Still thousands of years ago people thought it was worth it and colonized this place - surviving thanks to technologies such as housing, clothing and fire. Why did humans colonize Sweden but not the Gobi Desert? Because here everything required to survive can be found. In the desert there is very little water and probably very little other valuable resources (oil, iron, uranium, etc) making it worthwile to transport water into the desert.
The same WILL happen with mars as with many places on earth - there is water on mars, not on the surface, but on some places it will be found frozen below the surface. There is all necessary elements to grow crops, manufacture things and live a good life - given the sufficient technology. On mars we will also probably find valuable metals, minerals and other resources. We do not have the sufficient technology level today, but we will - and when we do we will go there.
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
We are sending probes to explore the planets, the asteroids and further. Unfortunately science always goes in its own pace, and the amount of investments is small compared to the money that goes to wars. But we are making progress.
Take look at New Horizons [jhuapl.edu], who will explore Pluto and beyond. It will take a few years, but I'm sure it will give images to us from a planet, that no one has ever seen before. And there are several other interesting projects running, not only US-based, but also Japanese (Hayabusa [wikipedia.org] took the first sample of an asteroid) and now even China is making progress in its space program [wikipedia.org].
Keep up the good hope!
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:3, Insightful)
From a purely information-theoretic perspective, the presence of people (and life) means that the net entropy of the universe is lower than it would be in our absence.
"benefit" and "detriment" don't really make sense, wrt the universe, but perhaps life can/will/has helped to postpone the universe's heat-death - if only for a short time.
Zen (Score:1, Insightful)
-tusse
Unbelievable... (Score:5, Insightful)
not an argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I wish it were true, there's actually no absolute value in that. Without humans, these intellectual achievements have no meaning. Meaning only exist in the mind of other humans.
Re:Methods... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it puts the whole idea into perspective. We're just another variety of life on this planet that's managed to evolve to the point of self-awareness, tool-using, and altogether too much self-importance. The idea that the universe would suffer from the human species becoming missing is folly.
Hah, look around you. If you think all you see is a good thing when compared to what things would have been like without us, you're nuts.
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:3, Insightful)
We'll never travel space. Any technology capable of producing enough energy to even make anything past mars a destination could also be used to create a weapon of unfathomable destruction...
Which do YOU think it will be used for first?
Re:Get some perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there is the fact that we can't get to them, so if they can get to us, they are far superior to us, at least scientifically/technologically.
Illogical argument (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
I knew this would show up sooner or later - "Earth, Love it or Leave it!".
People engage in a conversation, you don't like what they say, so ya tell them to kill themselves, and it gets modded to +5: Insightful. Jesus, there's a good reason to despair for humanity right there.
Almost agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think that there is an objective reason to believe that a species which was truly alien would like some (not all) classical music more than modern music: it has fewer musical assumptions.
Specifically, Bach's counterpoints make very few assumptions of the listener - you won't have to understand any other art forms to appreciate Bach. Most modern music (Rap, Rock, etc) uses a shared language which has been built up over centuries, and has a whole lot of cultural assumptions built into it. To pick an example, Eminim's song "Stan," which used the Dido song as a backdrop, makes a bunch of assumptions of the listener: we have to understand obsessive fandom, we have to have an appreciation of the irony of using a sweet pop melody to tell a murderous story, and we get all kinds of references to Eminim's earlier work.
Most artists draw on the shared body of culture to express their art - it's a very rare piece which will seem beautiful to radically different cultures. I would put forth that some early Bach would be more likely to succeed in that than, say, Elvis Presley. Also the lack of lyrics helps: if you listen to Rap, or most Rock without lyrics, it's clearly missing something major - many of the older classical pieces are designed as instrumentals, and thus avoid the language barrier.
Just my $.0196 (adjusted for inflation)
Re:Fix the Planet First, Only Move Out Much Later (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion and other romanticisms are just a mental sleight of hand to make up for the fact that the universe will uncaringly grind us all to dust.
We are far more dependent on the ecosystem of this planet than anyone seems to want to admit. That harebrained experiment with the "biosphere" a few years ago proved that one pregnant roach - or some other bug - can and will screw up the best laid plan.
All these pie in the sky engineering types should be forced to study cellular structure and function until they all realize that the most complex devices and processes they can design are tinkertoys compared to nature.
All this talk of consiousness and meaning and the perception of beauty is irrelevant nonsense as we haven't the slightest idea of the true nature and function of the universe. Every time we crack one mystery we find its built upon another that's an order of magnitude more difficult to understand.
What really needs to happen is for people to start planning on the mundane. Go hold a door open for someone and the human universe will be better off.
Re:Get some perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
There was zero evidence in 1845 that we'd have an atomic bomb in 1945.
Given the rate of technological advancement, it isn't far fetched to admit that it could be possible to create something that would replace us over a period of time.
Of course it won't be monkeys or dolphins that replace us, but rather something more unnatural that makes the homo sapien obsolete.
This might include genetically altered humans that are no longer of our species or artificial intelligence.
Even then we might all die off due to a freak accident in the atmosphere (cosmic rays or meteor) and have some type of cockroach evolution that replaces us in a few million years since none of us survived.
Re:What a conceited load of bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Sand more important? No.
Other possible sentient species more important? No, as the effectively don't exist on our timeline because of distance. Not like they exist anyway. Still No.
Who is more interesting? Humans. Any other objecting sentient species say, "BLAAAARGH!" Anyone? Ok, then, that's another "No".
T-Rex more interesting? No. I hate to be the one... but T-Rex is dead, my friend.
Ants? Screw ants. WTF, are you 'Speaks with Ants'? That's a NO!
Extinctions of humans a tragedy? Hell yeah!
Of course the "the universe doesn't have a consciousness"; however, it wouldn't change it thing if it did. Until you can Uplift [wikipedia.org] your planet of sentient ants, humans are the only beings in this universe that notice anything. We are the observers.
I think what the phrase "tragedy for the universe" is meant to mean is something like "it is a tragedy we won't get to take in as much as we could have". It is like having sex, or eating food, or taking a vacation. YES, it is all about the experience. When I die, it'll be a tragedy too, not because I'm interesting, but because there will always be beer I didn't drink, women I didn't bed, and places I haven't seen.
If you can't understand that, you need A LOT more of those three things.
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Conscious things like ourselves are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything."
Easily disproved. Conscious things NOT like ourselves also work. Mechanical intelligences, hive minds, and stuff that is so alien to us that we can't even begin to conceive it also work.
I doubt I'm the only one who thinks that this statement FTFA: "Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach"
... is self-centered in the extreme.
Like they expect evolution to stop with us? Does ANYONE believe that humans will look the same a couple of million years from now, if we still exist? Look at what we were like 2 million years ago ... oops homo sapiens sapiens didn't exist then ... neanderthals were still walking about between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.
And for those who don't believe in evolution, but want to invoke god - well, isn't your god capable of witnessing all this?
As for the "it's in the universe's best interest to keep us around. We make things fun" argument - this presumes that the universe *has* an interest and is capable of acting on it - in which case the universe is in some manner conscious, and can do without us when it comes to appreciating things. Tantamount to arguing some sort of universal gaiea.
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you've had an epiphany about power generation that says that anyone with basic technical skills could build a device in a week that would produce free limitless power. Is there any particular reason that you haven't gone ahead an built this device? If it's that easy, and all of the physicists and engineers are pissing in the wind with fusion power then why not demonstrate to them the error of their ways?
When you "see signs" that others know about this, do you also experience paranoia that they are coming to get you? Or witness strange meaning in coincidences that are all around you? I really don't know what's scarier, that so many people replied without actually mentioning anything that you'd said, or that somebody with mod points thought that you were insightful about easy the power generation problem is...
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Easily disproved. Conscious things NOT like ourselves also work. Mechanical intelligences, hive minds, and stuff that is so alien to us that we can't even begin to conceive it also work.
Your examples are all 'conscious things like ourselves'. It is the consciousness that is being used to decide what is included in the set, not some arbitrary stuff like being a bag of hydrocarbons.
Re:Methods... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point being that it is impossible to really know unless you have tried.
Is it worth it? Well, it would be better than a trillion dollar Iraq excursion. Is it possible? I can't say for certain, but it's certainly more noble than "bringing democracy to the Middle East" or "creating a terrorist honeypot" or "finding WMD" or whatever the excuse du jour is.
Why did people explore before? (Score:4, Insightful)
To decide whether it makes sense to spend resources on manned space travel, you should look at why mankind has explored and colonized new lands in the past.
Natural resources - Early man followed the food. There were edible plants and animals outside of Africa, so if you were hungry where you were born it made sense to go elsewhere for food. Civilized man sought spices, minerals, and lumber. It was lucrative to send out a ship and bring those back. Do the same economics apply to manned space travel?
Religious freedom - America was settled in part by people seeking freedom from religious or economic oppression in the Old World. Do you expect space colonies to escape from the burdens of Earthbound society?
Reduction of overpopulation - Colonization of America didn't do much to decrease the population of Europe. The number of emigrants was small compared to the existing population. For space travel, the number would be miniscule. You'd need to launch a thousand spaceships a day with a thousand passengers each to actually decrease the population of Earth. If overpopulation exists and a fertile underpopulated land is available then it's a good deal for those who make the journey. But it won't help those who stay behind, and we have found no hospitable planets outside our own.
Exploration - Curiosity and pursuit of knowledge are worthwhile reasons for exploration. Men went to the North Pole and the Moon because that was the only way to learn about them. With modern technology we could send a thousand robotic probes across the solar system for the cost of one manned trip to Mars.
Adventure - People still climb mountains just for the sense of adventure. You can build a rocket or buy a ticket on Spaceship One if that's worthwhile to you. But you shouldn't expect the government to fund your trip to the Moon any more than it would pay for your trip to Kilimanjaro.
Preservation of the species - If you're worried about a natural disaster, you could send a few dozen people to live in a deep mine or on the bottom of the ocean. They'll be just as safe as on the Moon or Mars. Plus they'll have protection from extreme temperatures and solar radiation. The journey would be a lot cheaper and less hazardous.
To maintain the spark of life - Life is interesting. It's a pity when some branch of Earth's diversity of life perishes. The universe would be a boring place without life (although there'd be nobody left to miss it). If we're the only life then that's good justification to spread it. But are we alone? Does other life exist? Is it common? Is it like us? Those are questions worth answering. Those are missions I'd be happy working for. Are those missions that would be helped or hindered by focusing on manned space travel?
AlpineR
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fix the Planet First, Only Move Out Much Later (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all a load of egocentric horseshit. Even a comedy writer like Doug Adams understood how unbelievable large the universe really is, and how unbelievably unimportant humans are in the scheme of things.
what does size have to do with importance?
We are far more dependent on the ecosystem of this planet than anyone seems to want to admit. That harebrained experiment with the "biosphere" a few years ago proved that one pregnant roach - or some other bug - can and will screw up the best laid plan.
Did biosphere use the best technology currently available? How does that technology compare to what will be available 100 or 1000 years from now?
All these pie in the sky engineering types should be forced to study cellular structure and function until they all realize that the most complex devices and processes they can design are tinkertoys compared to nature.
Is nature's engineering prowess increasing at a faster or slower pace than human prowess? What would be the long-term end result of such a trend?
All this talk of consiousness and meaning and the perception of beauty is irrelevant nonsense as we haven't the slightest idea of the true nature and function of the universe.
what makes you think that the universe has a function? What in particular is this nonsense irrelevant to?
Every time we crack one mystery we find its built upon another that's an order of magnitude more difficult to understand.
What would this have to do with an opinion about whether humanity should continue or not?
What really needs to happen is for people to start planning on the mundane. Go hold a door open for someone and the human universe will be better off.
Why is it important to do the right thing for individuals without consideration for the species as a whole?
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:3, Insightful)
>You're saying that we could evolve into another form of consciousness. But we can't evolve into another form of consciousness if we cease to exist before we do so. So your point of view is exactly as homo-centric as the articles.
My point of view is that there may or may not be other consciousness elsewhere in the universe, but that, in the end, its irrelevant. Just as, in the end, how long we survive as a species is irrelevant.
If the universe COULD care, then it already has the capacity to do the things the article posits that consciousness is needed for, so we're irrelevant. And if the universe CAN'T care, then we are still irrelevant.
Now, as to your statement:
>> conscious things, of which we are the only known example, are the only way the universe can be concerned about anything." Compare to the statement: "Primates, like ourselves, are the only animals that do XXXX."
Dolphins and whales aren't primates, and they have brains larger than ours, and are certainly conscious mammals. Ditto for elephants. Compare this to dinosaurs with brains the size of a walnut.
The article is pseudo-religious crap, not science. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, for starters, the article anthropomorphized the universe. It belongs with religous writings, not science.
"Some ask: so what if humans pass into history? It's not just a tragedy for us, but also one for nature. Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach. As the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan once said, "we are a way for the universe to know itself".
Factual errors in the above statement:
There is no evidence that "nature" can "experience" a tragedy. There is no evidence that nature has more consciousness than a sack of rocks.
This presupposes not just a human-centered concept of beauty, but that we, as humans, are the only beings capable of witnessing anything. Never mind that the author posits (point #1) that "nature" can "experience" tragedy; if nature can "experience tragedy", then why would nature need us to be able to experience beauty?
Just because Sagan said it, doesn't make it true. We are undoubtably here, and yet there is no proof that the universe "knows itself" today, except in quasi-religious and religious belief systems that posit a god or other supernatural being.
The best reasons for going into space are because its there, we want to, and we can make good use of it. Not some claptrap about if we pass away its a tragedy for nature, when there's more than ample evidence that, if anything, we ourselves are a tragedy on a daily basis. Go into space, by all means. I'm 100% for that, but go because we can, because we want to, because we're curious, because we can find uses for the stuff we find out there, for the knowledge we'll acquire, for the insights we'll develop, because we want the elbow room, or a room with a spectacular view, or to do something different.
These are real reasons to go. Go because WE WANT TO, not because of some metaphysical bullshit argument. The latter just make it easier to stereotype those who see space as a place to expand as just wild-eyed dreamers. The article does us a disservice. I say put the writer out the next airlock :-)
The key would be to adapt (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it this way: Wouldn't it be silly for a race of intelligent fish to try to colonize the land? Actually, that's exactly what they did, but only after they themselves adapted to the environment over millions of years of evolution. Similarly, I think that if we are ever going to colonize space on a large scale, we're going to have to adapt our bodies first. For example, resistance to vacuum, radiation, zero-g, and increased tolerance for heat and cold would be steps in the right direction. Will the results of such an engineering project still be human? I guess that will depend on what you define as human, but I figure that it's something we're going to have to do if we ever really want to leave this planet.
So, the good news is that there's reason to be optimistic: yes, we will eventually be able to colonize space! The bad news is that it'll likely take a couple of hundred years before we have that kind of capability, and once we have it we may not want to use it. Either way, we're going to have to figure out how to survive here on Earth for the time being.
Re:Enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benefit or detriment? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really want to deal with Christians, get them to read the Bible, wait until they get to the end of it and ask them,"If you really believe in god, why aren't you trying to create a weapon to destroy him?" I base this on god being a right asshole (old testament), changing his mind (new), and then wiping us out anyway (revelation). If your father in law abused your wife as a child, was nice to her during her teens, and then was going to kill her in her twenties, what would you do?
Human centric (Score:1, Insightful)
Typical Slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
However for all the other people here, who are a bit more optimistic, believe in human kind and think we are important. Yeahh to them. I for one wont be gloomed into a depression. I like this planet, I like human kind and if possible we should spread out and find new frontiers to conquer. I love music, art, movies, books and whatnot, it is all one damn fine creation by inventive humans who want to better themself, even though it wont go without a war here and there, eventually we will get there.
Goodluck humankind I will be here watching you progress.
Re:Enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
Caring about other humans who are not your closest relatives also seems quite strange.
Uh....no....that's basic human nature. If you are walking down the street and see a child get hit by a car: do you stop and call 911 or do you think: "Doesn't have anything to do with me. He's not my relative." The word "strange" means "out of the ordinary" but caring about distant strangers is not "out of the ordinary" at all. Most people give to charities that help strangers. If you would not help the child and have never given money to a foreign-oriented charity then YOU are the strange one.
Re:Fix the Planet First, Only Move Out Much Later (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution had no intent in bringing the brain out as 'better' than all of its other machines, so why should we treat ourselves as the paragon of intellect and creativity? At the very least we should be neutral regarding our position in the cosmos, not declaring ourselves insignificant or significant, simply able to regulate experience enough to have a net effect.