Humanity has to stop being Human

[lazerus]

First, let me start by listing the assumptions I'm making. While not all of them are literaly true, I think that all of them are practicly true and so can be considered facts.

Assumption #1) FTL Teleporation, Wormholes, or any non-starship method of hauling people and cargo from starsystem to starsystem is not possible.
Corilary #1) A starsystem cannot use extrasteller colonies to supply itself with raw materials.
Corilary #2) A starsystem cannot use extrasteller colonies to deal with overpopulation problems.
Corilary #3) With no method of enforcing it's will over colonies in any reasonable time frame. A mother planet cannot maintain an empire outside of it's own system.

Assumption #2) There is enough usefull energy in one star system that a sufficiently advanced and non-wastefull human culture could supply themselves for an indefinate peroid of time.
Corilary #1 The only way resources are lost is when their turned towards unproductive uses. Such as war.
Corilary #2 A wastefull, or irrational human culture can and will quickly deplete all available resources in their area.
Corilary #3 Basic things that humans need other then food and water (Example: Entertainment) are not counted as "wastefull" in corilary #2. Within limits.

Assumption #3) Human nature is not going to fundamentally change in the forseeable future.
Corilary #1 People will still be violent.
Corilary #2 People will still be stupid.
Corilary #3 People will still be greedy.
Corilary #4 Religion will not die out.

Assumption #4) Human technology will continue to advance at a steady rate, ignoring brief spikes or toughs from situational changes.
Corilary #1 Weapons will continue to get more deadly and distructive.
Corilary #2 Since people are not getting significantly smarter (see Assumption #3) this new technology will leave the non-educated parts of humanity in the dust, as much high-tech does today.

------------------------------------------------------
Next, the conclustions that one can draw from this.

Intermediate Conclusion #1 There is a fixed amount of productive energy in the solar system, call it X. Humanity will consume Y as them climb up the tech tree. Leaving a fixed amount X-Y=Q available for productive use.

Intermediate Conclusion #2 Every time humanity directs an indevor towards a blatnetly distructive use, Q drops.

Intermediate Conclusion #3 The smaller Q is, the larger impact decreases in Q will have on humanity. Put simply, when you have a lot to spare you can afford losing a little, when you have nothing small changes hurt badly.

Intermediate Conclusion #3 As Q approaches zero the star system in question becomes uninhabitable.

----------------------------------------------

With these in mind, lets try and predict humanities long term future in the Solar System.

Assumption #1 means that a star system is effectivly a closed world. We can't go out and get additional Q, or reduce our demand for Q via export, we have to work with what we have (both with people and resources). Thus, humanity must use only the most efficent methods possible, and must not let their population go above the sustainable limit.

But, Assumption #3 comes into play. Humans are too short sighted to do that. If allowed to act on their own, or as independent governements, they may overpopulate, be wastefull, etc. A war (which would lower Q) would solve this in the short run, but the new empire would eventually fragment again. The later in time it fragments, the more it hurts Q (because of assumption 4, Corilary 1).

And even if humanity was somehow able to hold together in a coherent empire, Assumption 4 (Corilary 2) would mean that the advanced technology in question couldn't possibly be used to it's most efficent potential.

The point that I am (rather clumisly) trying to come too is that long-term human existance is an impossiblity. For any prayer of an existance beyond migrating from system to system, with a few of us jumping shim from that system right before it dies, humanities basic nature has to change.

I can't being to speculate as to what that change will be, be it thought genetic engineering, very deep brainwashing, cybernetics, whatever. But humanity is fated to either die out, or to only be a jumping-off point for a more advanced race.

And......yeah. I thought the implcations of that were interesting. Your thoughts?

[Zero]

The only way human nature would change is if people could be less short sighted, and actually make efforts to make it change. Since short-sightedness is part of human nature, we won't feel a need to change human nature. Also, by this logic, we're doomed either way. If we can't leave our solar system, we're going to die out when our sun does anyways, in 4 billion years.

There's one other bit you're missing. Although all the things you've stated are true, they are only true of our basic natures. As humans, we have the ability to reflect on ourselves, and actually do things different from our instinct. If society teaches the majority of its people to be less short sighted, many things can be averted. What truly sets humans apart from the animals is that we can reflect... we don't have to go with our basic nature.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You can solve population problems with generation/relativistic colony craft to other worlds, you just can't maintain control of their settlements.

[Zero]

Primus, how can this possibly help any population problem? The amount of effort that would be needed to get a significant portion of any population into orbit simply isn't considerable. The only way this might be feasable is if it we built a kind of space elevator, but the kind of maintanence such a thing would require, not to mention the difficulty in designing and building it, make such a thing nearly impossible. I don't believe there's any reasonable way to transport large populations of people from this crowded planet to anywhere else.

[wolveraptor]

Colonies could still be founded though. They just wouldn't have any use other than spreading humanity out. You could have a few hundred thousand people shipped off to another solar system, and they could be the starting base for humanity there. All this would do, though, is make our race less susceptible to, say, a random asteroid crashing into the planet, because there'd still be other colonies out there.

However, I'd have to disagree with your statement that humans will advance at a steady rate. 21st and 20th century technology has advanced at an exponential rate. In a half a century we went from horse-drawn carriages and trains to spaceflight and thermonuclear weapons. Man will advance at a faster, not steady rate, until we reach some sort of plateau, like they did in the ancient world. Hell, some scientists were already experimenting with steam power at that time, but they never saw any practical application, due to widespread slavery. If the Dark Ages hadn't come, we might have had the Industrial revolution several centuries early.

[lazerus]

The only way human nature would change is if people could be less short sighted, and actually make efforts to make it change. Since short-sightedness is part of human nature, we won't feel a need to change human nature. Also, by this logic, we're doomed either way. If we can't leave our solar system, we're going to die out when our sun does anyways, in 4 billion years.

There's one other bit you're missing. Although all the things you've stated are true, they are only true of our basic natures. As humans, we have the ability to reflect on ourselves, and actually do things different from our instinct. If society teaches the majority of its people to be less short sighted, many things can be averted. What truly sets humans apart from the animals is that we can reflect... we don't have to go with our basic nature.

But unless we reflect CONSTANTLY, we loose. Every bit of irrational behavior chips away at Q until it hits zero. There is not "atoneing" to get it back. And don't claim that humanity is completly rational.

You can solve population problems with generation/relativistic colony craft to other worlds, you just can't maintain control of their settlements.

In Zero's words...

Primus, how can this possibly help any population problem? The amount of effort that would be needed to get a significant portion of any population into orbit simply isn't considerable. The only way this might be feasable is if it we built a kind of space elevator, but the kind of maintanence such a thing would require, not to mention the difficulty in designing and building it, make such a thing nearly impossible. I don't believe there's any reasonable way to transport large populations of people from this crowded planet to anywhere else.

On the money.

[Zero]

I never would claim that humanity is completely rational. I will, however, question you on how we can actually get RID of Q... I suppose it depends on what Q is, but most things that we need just to live don't require a resource that isn't constantly replenishing itself anyways. If you want to talk about something like oil, then you can't really talk about survival. We won't die out if we run out of oil, we'll just have to abandon some things we're accustomed to now. What non-replenishable resource do we actually NEED to survive?

[SPOOFE]

I would disagree that human nature won't change... or rather, human behavior won't change. Human nature is to fight or work for things that are perceived as necessary. As technology advances, providing necessary, and even many unnecessary, things will become easier and easier. Sure, it hasn't solved everything yet, but I'd sure like someone to tell me that starvation in first-world countries hasn't gone down enormously in the past 200 years.

Bread and circuses, man. Eventually, governments (or The Government) will be able to afford really good bread and really good circuses for the teeming trillions, and when that happens, you'll see your change in human behavior.

[SirNitram]

Overpopulation can be dealt with this way:

Construct orbital habitats.
Attach engines.
Commence nomadic existance.

Since technology is going to continue to advance, we can safely assume we'll manage the space elevator sooner or later, and then it gets quite a bit easier to get such things done.

[Zero]

As the amount of necessity has gone down, we've seen other trends, such as increased apathy. Do you really think the human race gets better as absolute necessity decreases? We've progressed only as far as neccesity takes us. Advances have really just been about people being simultaneously smart and lazy. It's called efficiency.

[lazerus]

I never would claim that humanity is completely rational. I will, however, question you on how we can actually get RID of Q... I suppose it depends on what Q is, but most things that we need just to live don't require a resource that isn't constantly replenishing itself anyways. If you want to talk about something like oil, then you can't really talk about survival. We won't die out if we run out of oil, we'll just have to abandon some things we're accustomed to now. What non-replenishable resource do we actually NEED to survive?

If you build a space station out of metal, that's a replenishable resource because you can recycle it. If you blast that station to atoms with a high yeild nuke, it's "gone" becuase there's no way you can collect the material now.

[SPOOFE]

Do you really think the human race gets better as absolute necessity decreases?

"Better"? I'd certainly like to know where I said "better". It'll just get less actively self-destructive and more passively self-destructive.

[lazerus]

Do you really think the human race gets better as absolute necessity decreases?

"Better"? I'd certainly like to know where I said "better". It'll just get less actively self-destructive and more passively self-destructive.

Still self distructive.

[Zero]

Do you really think the human race gets better as absolute necessity decreases?

"Better"? I'd certainly like to know where I said "better". It'll just get less actively self-destructive and more passively self-destructive.

Still self distructive.

My sentiments exactly. We won't improve, so for any realistic purpose, we're not going to change, and start thinking long term.

[Surlethe]

First, let me start by listing the assumptions I'm making. While not all of them are literally true, I think that all of them are practically true and so can be considered facts.

Assumption #1 FTL Teleportation, Wormholes, or any non-starship method of hauling people and cargo from star system to star system is not possible.
Corollary #1 A star system cannot use extrasteller colonies to supply itself with raw materials.
Corollary #2 A star system cannot use extrasteller colonies to deal with overpopulation problems.
Corollary #3 With no method of enforcing it's will over colonies in any reasonable time frame. A mother planet cannot maintain an empire outside of it's own system.

The assumption seems correct. I disagree with Corollaries 1 and 2.
Corollary 1 does not follow because of the fact that several systems are close enough to engage in interstellar trade: two stars are within 4.5 light years, and 15 are within an 11 ly radius (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... rest.shtml). Presuming the development of relativistic travel (Assumption 4), humans are going to be able to trade between the stars, albeit at a delayed rate; as trade picks up, though, it may grow to resemble something of the pre-steam transoceanic trade between the European mother nations and their colonies.

Corollary 2 does not follow because, as we reach the limits of technological expansion, we will be able to build interstellar colonies, and send them out to other systems. Humanity will be pretty much unkillable by then.

Assumption #2 There is enough useful energy in one star system that a sufficiently advanced and non-wasteful human culture could supply themselves for an indefinite period of time.
Corollary #1 The only way resources are lost is when they're turned towards unproductive uses. Such as war.
Corollary #2 A wasteful, or irrational human culture can and will quickly deplete all available resources in their area.
Corollary #3 Basic things that humans need other then food and water (Example: Entertainment) are not counted as "wasteful" in corollary #2. Within limits.

I disagree with Corollary 2. A wasteful or irrational human culture will not necessarily deplete the resources quickly - depletion would be directly proportional to the wastefulness.

Assumption #3 Human nature is not going to fundamentally change in the foreseeable future.
Corollary #1 People will still be violent.
Corollary #2 People will still be stupid.
Corollary #3 People will still be greedy.
Corollary #4 Religion will not die out.

Agreed, with the exception of corollary 2. As the sum of human knowledge advances, more and more of it will disseminate down into the everyday knowledge. For example, now most everybody knows how to use a computer. Humans are smarter in that regard than they were even thirty years ago.

Assumption #4 Human technology will continue to advance at a steady rate, ignoring brief spikes or toughs from situational changes.
Corollary #1 Weapons will continue to get more deadly and destructive.
Corollary #2 Since people are not getting significantly smarter (see Assumption #3) this new technology will leave the non-educated parts of humanity in the dust, as much high-tech does today.

I rather feel human technology will advance to the limits proscribed by physical laws, and then plateau; once technology has gone so far, it will only be limited by resources. However, I also disagree with Corollary 2 (see my disagreement with Corollary 2 to Assumption 3).

------------------------------------------------------

Next, the conclusions that one can draw from this.

Intermediate Conclusion #1 There is a fixed amount of productive energy in the solar system, call it X. Humanity will consume Y as them climb up the tech tree. Leaving a fixed amount X-Y=Q available for productive use.

True.

Intermediate Conclusion #2 Every time humanity directs an endeavor towards a blatantly destructive use, Q drops.

True.

Intermediate Conclusion #3 The smaller Q is, the larger impact decreases in Q will have on humanity. Put simply, when you have a lot to spare you can afford losing a little, when you have nothing small changes hurt badly.

Correct: Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, IIRC.

Intermediate Conclusion #3 As Q approaches zero the star system in question becomes uninhabitable.

I disagree, because I disagree with Corollaries 1 and 2 to Assumption 1. However, it is correct in the sense that it will no longer be profitable to live there, and thus nobody will want to live there anyway.

----------------------------------------------

With these in mind, lets try and predict humanities long-term future in the Solar System.

Assumption #1 means that a star system is effectively a closed world. We can't go out and get additional Q, or reduce our demand for Q via export, we have to work with what we have (both with people and resources). Thus, humanity must use only the most efficient methods possible, and must not let their population go above the sustainable limit.

I disagree; see above.

But, Assumption #3 comes into play. Humans are too short sighted to do that. If allowed to act on their own, or as independent governments, they may overpopulate, be wasteful, etc. A war (which would lower Q) would solve this in the short run, but the new empire would eventually fragment again. The later in time it fragments, the more it hurts Q (because of assumption 4, Corollary 1).

Not to be a capitalist wanker, but the free market will, IIRC, generally allocate the scarce resources of Q as efficiently as possible. Thus, if a free market economy develops (and it should), humans will eventually get down to the business of developing the most efficient ways to utilize those resources.

And even if humanity was somehow able to hold together in a coherent empire, Assumption 4 (Corollary 2) would mean that the advanced technology in question couldn't possibly be used to it's most efficient potential.

It probably wouldn't be used at all, and wouldn't even be constructed (if the empire was long-term enough and peaceful enough; witness how in the Star Wars PT, the Republic didn't have ships on hand the equivalent of Star Destroyers to put down the rebellion; they had to work up to the Venator over the course of years), thus not using resources at all, and not affecting Q.

The point that I am (rather clumsily) trying to come too is that long-term human existence is an impossibility. For any prayer of an existence beyond migrating from system to system, with a few of us jumping shim from that system right before it dies, humanities basic nature has to change.

I can't being to speculate as to what that change will be, be it thought genetic engineering, very deep brainwashing, cybernetics, whatever. But humanity is fated to either die out, or to only be a jumping-off point for a more advanced race.

And......yeah. I thought the implications of that were interesting. Your thoughts?

Most interesting. I like the logic you employ, but I think the possibility of interstellar trade needs to be explored a bit more. Overall, I like it your analysis very much, if I disagree with some of it.

[Zero]

Surlethe, any of these external star systems are too far away for extraction of resources to be feasable. The amount of energy required to transport something out there, and for that thing to transport stuff back here simply isn't reasonable.

[Zero]

Surlethe, any of these external star systems are too far away for extraction of resources to be feasable. The amount of energy required to transport something out there, and for that thing to transport stuff back here simply isn't reasonable.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, any of these external star systems are too far away for extraction of resources to be feasable. The amount of energy required to transport something out there, and for that thing to transport stuff back here simply isn't reasonable.

I'm not talking about sending a crew out to mine Alpha Centauri for a week, and then bring the resources back. I mean more along the lines of establishing a colony at Alpha Centauri, and then conducting long distance trade with it.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Humans wont improve, the best bet is to transport the last remaining dolphins there and hope for the best

[Stark]

Realistically, humans will never leave the solar system in any practical, exploratory way. Machines, either controlled by our identities or by independent identities, can. We lose, in the grand scheme of things. What's the importance of being human anyway?

I mean, look at vampire literature! LOL

[wolveraptor]

We might with cryogenics. Imagine: a massive spaceship fleet, constructed in orbit, with craft well in excess of 4 kilometres in length, packed to the brim with cryogenically frozen bodies, and only a simple AI to guide the ship to it's destination.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Until people kill each other about who gets to leave the wasted earth or a mutiny breaks out, (see Sid Meirs Alpha Centauri)

[wolveraptor]

That's retarded. The people leaving Earth would need to do so at a time when Earth was doing fine, and we had colonies on plenty of other planets. People'd be more inclined to STAY than go. Unless our leaders are incredibly stupid, they'd carry out this project long before the resource depletion of the SS.

[lazerus]

The assumption seems correct. I disagree with Corollaries 1 and 2.
Corollary 1 does not follow because of the fact that several systems are close enough to engage in interstellar trade: two stars are within 4.5 light years, and 15 are within an 11 ly radius (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... rest.shtml). Presuming the development of relativistic travel (Assumption 4), humans are going to be able to trade between the stars, albeit at a delayed rate; as trade picks up, though, it may grow to resemble something of the pre-steam transoceanic trade between the European mother nations and their colonies.

Perhaps, although I question the feasability of such an indevor. But the physical (im)possibility is secondary to the practical impossiblity. If you were a colonist, who probably hasn't ever been in the SS, would you want to ship a significant fraction of your systems resources back to a system that gives you nothing in return but their excess population?

Therefore, Corilary #3 supports 1 and 2.

I disagree with Corollary 2. A wasteful or irrational human culture will not necessarily deplete the resources quickly - depletion would be directly proportional to the wastefulness.

Granted.

Agreed, with the exception of corollary 2. As the sum of human knowledge advances, more and more of it will disseminate down into the everyday knowledge. For example, now most everybody knows how to use a computer. Humans are smarter in that regard than they were even thirty years ago.

I was refering to literal intellegence, as well as rational behavior, not education. But granted.

I rather feel human technology will advance to the limits proscribed by physical laws, and then plateau; once technology has gone so far, it will only be limited by resources. However, I also disagree with Corollary 2 (see my disagreement with Corollary 2 to Assumption 3).

In midevil times, very few peasents could have explained the mechanics behind the times latest innovation, the longbow. Today very few average citizens could explain the mechanics behind a cruse missle. People get better educated, but technology gets more advanced at the same rate.

Not to be a capitalist wanker, but the free market will, IIRC, generally allocate the scarce resources of Q as efficiently as possible. Thus, if a free market economy develops (and it should), humans will eventually get down to the business of developing the most efficient ways to utilize those resources.

Captialism is very efficent in the short term. But surely your not trying to claim that it can't also be very, very wastefull in the long term.

[Eleas]

The assumption seems correct. I disagree with Corollaries 1 and 2.
Corollary 1 does not follow because of the fact that several systems are close enough to engage in interstellar trade: two stars are within 4.5 light years, and 15 are within an 11 ly radius (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... rest.shtml). Presuming the development of relativistic travel (Assumption 4), humans are going to be able to trade between the stars, albeit at a delayed rate; as trade picks up, though, it may grow to resemble something of the pre-steam transoceanic trade between the European mother nations and their colonies.

Perhaps, although I question the feasability of such an indevor. But the physical (im)possibility is secondary to the practical impossiblity. If you were a colonist, who probably hasn't ever been in the SS, would you want to ship a significant fraction of your systems resources back to a system that gives you nothing in return but their excess population?

This doesn't necessarily follow at all, unless in fact you're really talking about one-sided exploitation. Your assumption is dependent on the idea that the solar system would only pay in colonists, whereas Earth presumably has a lot of stuff with which it can trade. Otherwise, a trade union would make no sense; trade is generally conducted for mutual benefit.

Realistically, we'll most probably see such trade being conducted on a smaller scale within the solar system. Scaling it up shouldn't be all that impossible, at least in principle.