Humanity has to stop being Human

[Gil Hamilton]

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

Why can't human beings leave the solar system for exploration? They may not come back within a small period of time (they may be gone for hundreds of years solar system time), but if they have the technology, some group is going to eventually invest in building an interstellar capable starship. People are constantly compelled to go to new frontiers. I mean, look at how many people want to send men to Mars. There isn't a damn good reason to do so in practical terms right now but there may be in the future and Mars is there. If human nature won't change, people are always going to be looking for new frontiers and in the scenario proposed in the OP, the new frontier is outside the solar system.

[Zoink]

If you want humans to be less human, then you could get rid of that human-based desire to live forever and have mankind survive into infinity. That way, when the ability for mankind to continue to live in this universe comes to an end, nobody will care.

[Surlethe]

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 don't see why the excess population should be the only thing Earth can offer to its colonies. In the 18th century, Britain didn't just ship over its prisoners and its slaves to the American Colonies -- there was a thriving trade. This would be practically the same thing, on a larger scale.

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.

That's true, but eventually, the technological innovation will level out, and as people see profit in distributing such technology, the general technological knowledge among the populace will increase.

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.

Ah! My mistake. Efficient distribution of resources is not the same as efficient utilization. Sorry.

I still have the gut feeling a free market economy will not waste Q, but right now I'm unable to nail down the why. I'll think about it and get back to you on it.

[Coyote]

Bear in mind that some of our technological expertise in the last 100 years or so has acome about due to two things that are regarded as "evil" or at least undesireable: war and capitalism. Capitalism wants things produced faster and cheaper and led to the Industrial Revolution; war sped up the process by finding newer and better ways to harvest souls. Without these two things we'd still be in thatch-hut villages and afraid of the dark.

This is not a case in favor of warfare and rampant capitalism; my point is that things which are bad to a certain point are in the long run producing benefits beyond the immediate destructive effects. If there were no war, and no need for high-altitude bombing, there would be no pressurized cockpits-- an obvious must-have step towards the eventual development of spacefaring technology.

Scientific curiosity and exploration would have eventually discovered it, but much, much later.

[Patrick Degan]

Why can't human beings leave the solar system for exploration? They may not come back within a small period of time (they may be gone for hundreds of years solar system time), but if they have the technology, some group is going to eventually invest in building an interstellar capable starship. People are constantly compelled to go to new frontiers. I mean, look at how many people want to send men to Mars. There isn't a damn good reason to do so in practical terms right now but there may be in the future and Mars is there. If human nature won't change, people are always going to be looking for new frontiers and in the scenario proposed in the OP, the new frontier is outside the solar system.

Mars is reachable within a very reasonable timeframe and there are theoretical benefits to be had from exploring Mars. The same is not true for even a .5c expedition to Alpha Centauri, nevermind to any of the other major stars within a 200 ly radius of Earth. Anybody who's leaving this solar system in a STL ship is essentially saying goodbye forever, because the travel times would be too long and there would be no practical benefit from attempting to establish any sort of trading network over such immense distances. And "the instinct to explore" is not going to be enough to justify the expense and engineering effort of such a project for any return other than meeting an abstract philosophical goal.

[Zero]

I have a question towards the original post... what exactly could Q be? What non-renewable resource do we truly need to survive?

[Gil Hamilton]

Mars is reachable within a very reasonable timeframe and there are theoretical benefits to be had from exploring Mars. The same is not true for even a .5c expedition to Alpha Centauri, nevermind to any of the other major stars within a 200 ly radius of Earth. Anybody who's leaving this solar system in a STL ship is essentially saying goodbye forever, because the travel times would be too long and there would be no practical benefit from attempting to establish any sort of trading network over such immense distances. And "the instinct to explore" is not going to be enough to justify the expense and engineering effort of such a project for any return other than meeting an abstract philosophical goal.

Alpha Centauri isn't a reachable or reasonable goal now, but I'm projecting down the road when overpopulation is a problem over the entire solar system. As you noticed, I acknowledged they could be away from home for centuries in terms of local time even assuming they come back and someone, most likely multiple someones, are going to try to do it eventually. In an overcrowded solar system in the future where interplanetary travel is commonplace and trivial, the odds aren't that bad that some group with the means, the motivation, and the opportunity is going to want to start sending ships full of people to other star systems, particularly if information from robot probes to the solar system have previously discovered interesting things, like planets with alot of free oxygen in the atmosphere and liquid water on the surface.

[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?

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.

22 years minimum there and back dosn't make for very good trade in manufactured goods. By the time the shipment arrives, the colony could have made it on their own.

I don't see why the excess population should be the only thing Earth can offer to its colonies. In the 18th century, Britain didn't just ship over its prisoners and its slaves to the American Colonies -- there was a thriving trade. This would be practically the same thing, on a larger scale.

Except that the SS shipping part of it's Q to a colony defeats the whole point. So all it could ship is manufactured goods. (I address that above)

That's true, but eventually, the technological innovation will level out, and as people see profit in distributing such technology, the general technological knowledge among the populace will increase.

Of course, you have to factor in that as the technology gets more and more complicated, the fraction of the population that is simply incapable of understanding it will increase.

Ah! My mistake. Efficient distribution of resources is not the same as efficient utilization. Sorry.

I still have the gut feeling a free market economy will not waste Q, but right now I'm unable to nail down the why. I'll think about it and get back to you on it.

I look foreward to your responce.

I have a question towards the original post... what exactly could Q be? What non-renewable resource do we truly need to survive?

Q is, in theroy, infintation renewable. For example, a space station made out of titanium is renewable because we can melt it down again. But if we nuke it to space dust, that material is "lost" because we can't salvage it.

[Zero]

I can understand why people would want to leave the solar system, if it becomes exteremely overcrowded, but I'm not so sure we'll ever actually populate planets beyond earth.

[lazerus]

I can understand why people would want to leave the solar system, if it becomes exteremely overcrowded, but I'm not so sure we'll ever actually populate planets beyond earth.

Care to back that up?

[Zero]

I have a question towards the original post... what exactly could Q be? What non-renewable resource do we truly need to survive?

Q is, in theroy, infintation renewable. For example, a space station made out of titanium is renewable because we can melt it down again. But if we nuke it to space dust, that material is "lost" because we can't salvage it.

I never needed a space station to live. As far as I can see, the worst we can do to ourselves is inhibit our own progress. All the things we truly need to survive, the absolute necessities, aren't non-renewables. If they were, the species would already have died out long before...

[lazerus]

I have a question towards the original post... what exactly could Q be? What non-renewable resource do we truly need to survive?

Q is, in theroy, infintation renewable. For example, a space station made out of titanium is renewable because we can melt it down again. But if we nuke it to space dust, that material is "lost" because we can't salvage it.

I never needed a space station to live. As far as I can see, the worst we can do to ourselves is inhibit our own progress. All the things we truly need to survive, the absolute necessities, aren't non-renewables. If they were, the species would already have died out long before...

You know the sun is going to consume the planet, and all those renewables with it, eventually right? Assuming the asteroids dont' get us first.

[Zero]

Well then, have you just admitted that your 2nd assumption was false?

[Eleas]

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.

22 years minimum there and back dosn't make for very good trade in manufactured goods. By the time the shipment arrives, the colony could have made it on their own.

Two points.

1. "There and back" is irrelevant. "There" matters, but unless you send the goods back for a refund, you have no reason to return it.
2. Again, you presuppose something. In this case, it is that the wares consist of manufactured goods that the colony simply must have, with no consideration made in regards to the economical benefits of trade Needless to say, if it was easier to buy the goods than to manufacture on site, they would buy it. This is roughly the way a centralized industry works.

[Patrick Degan]

Mars is reachable within a very reasonable timeframe and there are theoretical benefits to be had from exploring Mars. The same is not true for even a .5c expedition to Alpha Centauri, nevermind to any of the other major stars within a 200 ly radius of Earth. Anybody who's leaving this solar system in a STL ship is essentially saying goodbye forever, because the travel times would be too long and there would be no practical benefit from attempting to establish any sort of trading network over such immense distances. And "the instinct to explore" is not going to be enough to justify the expense and engineering effort of such a project for any return other than meeting an abstract philosophical goal.

Alpha Centauri isn't a reachable or reasonable goal now, but I'm projecting down the road when overpopulation is a problem over the entire solar system. As you noticed, I acknowledged they could be away from home for centuries in terms of local time even assuming they come back and someone, most likely multiple someones, are going to try to do it eventually. In an overcrowded solar system in the future where interplanetary travel is commonplace and trivial, the odds aren't that bad that some group with the means, the motivation, and the opportunity is going to want to start sending ships full of people to other star systems, particularly if information from robot probes to the solar system have previously discovered interesting things, like planets with alot of free oxygen in the atmosphere and liquid water on the surface.

Actually, it would be far easier to simply build orbital habitats as needed to accomodate the growing population of Sol. There is plenty of space within the habitable zone of this star system and even in the inner and outer zones to accomodate thousands of artificial habitats without any of them orbiting on a collision course with one another or being impeded in the harvesting of solar energy.

However, space migration, when it finally does happen, can establish the same setup at any star with a sufficent energy-output. You don't even need Earthlike worlds if you can build orbital habitats using the minerals freely available from the asteroids and moons of the star system colonised by the initial band of migrants. But the idea that there would be anyone returning from the stars after leaving Earth in STL vessels taking decades in the crossing is neither feasible nor logical. Any new colonial society is not going to waste one of its valuable spacecraft in such a purposeless journey.

[Crown]

For all those here, if you are interseted you should look into reading this book (try a library first, because I don't want to get flammed by people who didn't like it); The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps by Marshall T. Savage with a foreword by Arthur C. Clarke.

It's a bit of a mix of Science and Fiction, the author paints his steps in really broad strokes. Some of the stuff he suggests are truely imaginative, most of the technology were things 'just off the horizon' when written (some feasible, others not), but I'll guarantee you that you will be gearing up just waiting to get started with the colonization.

Highlights include;

• Sea habitats (Aquarius), to increase food production and to increase Earth's population to about 12 billion.
• A 'space bridge' (Birfrost Bridge), basically think of Jules Verne's idea of a cannon to put man in orbit.
• Space habitats around Earth (Asguard) (3) - GIANT.
• Moon bases (Valhalla), on the Moon's craters with GIANT trees and flying humans.
• Terra-formation of Mars (Ellysium Field) and large scale colonisation.
• Dyson sphere around Sol (Solaria).
• Inter-Stellar colonisation (Galactica).
• Finally Inter-Stellar highways.

I will conceed, as Mr Clarke did, that the author's definition of 'easy' is up to debate though!

[Surlethe]

22 years minimum there and back dosn't make for very good trade in manufactured goods. By the time the shipment arrives, the colony could have made it on their own.

Unless it can't make it on its own, or its resources could be put to better use making something else to trade with the incoming ship.

I don't see why the excess population should be the only thing Earth can offer to its colonies. In the 18th century, Britain didn't just ship over its prisoners and its slaves to the American Colonies -- there was a thriving trade. This would be practically the same thing, on a larger scale.

Except that the SS shipping part of it's Q to a colony defeats the whole point. So all it could ship is manufactured goods. (I address that above)

It ships part of its Q (manufactured or raw) to the colony, and receives part of the colony's Q in return. Because of the nature of trade, both have a higher Q than either would have before.

That's true, but eventually, the technological innovation will level out, and as people see profit in distributing such technology, the general technological knowledge among the populace will increase.

Of course, you have to factor in that as the technology gets more and more complicated, the fraction of the population that is simply incapable of understanding it will increase.

True -- understanding the why. But understanding how to use it will increase, which still represents a continued increase in human knowledge.

Ah! My mistake. Efficient distribution of resources is not the same as efficient utilization. Sorry.

I still have the gut feeling a free market economy will not waste Q, but right now I'm unable to nail down the why. I'll think about it and get back to you on it.

I look forward to your response.

In the long run, the markets will still distribute Q efficiently. And in the long run, the people who value Q the most are the ones who will use it the most efficiently, because they want to get the most value out of the least amount of resources -- thus, they utilize Q efficiently. Thus, a free market distributes and uses Q efficiently.

[Patrick Degan]

22 years minimum there and back dosn't make for very good trade in manufactured goods. By the time the shipment arrives, the colony could have made it on their own.

Unless it can't make it on its own, or its resources could be put to better use making something else to trade with the incoming ship.

I don't see why the excess population should be the only thing Earth can offer to its colonies. In the 18th century, Britain didn't just ship over its prisoners and its slaves to the American Colonies -- there was a thriving trade. This would be practically the same thing, on a larger scale.

Except that the SS shipping part of it's Q to a colony defeats the whole point. So all it could ship is manufactured goods. (I address that above)

It ships part of its Q (manufactured or raw) to the colony, and receives part of the colony's Q in return. Because of the nature of trade, both have a higher Q than either would have before.

That's true, but eventually, the technological innovation will level out, and as people see profit in distributing such technology, the general technological knowledge among the populace will increase.

Of course, you have to factor in that as the technology gets more and more complicated, the fraction of the population that is simply incapable of understanding it will increase.

True -- understanding the why. But understanding how to use it will increase, which still represents a continued increase in human knowledge.

Ah! My mistake. Efficient distribution of resources is not the same as efficient utilization. Sorry.

I still have the gut feeling a free market economy will not waste Q, but right now I'm unable to nail down the why. I'll think about it and get back to you on it.

I look forward to your response.

In the long run, the markets will still distribute Q efficiently. And in the long run, the people who value Q the most are the ones who will use it the most efficiently, because they want to get the most value out of the least amount of resources -- thus, they utilize Q efficiently. Thus, a free market distributes and uses Q efficiently.

Your logic is severely flawed. The idea that two star systems light years apart would have some sort of imbalance in what they could produce with the resources available in either which one could make up for the other in trade is unrealistic on its face; nevermind the assumption that any sort of trading arrangement between star systems is feasible considering that there would be no way to shift any sufficent amount of material or goods across a distance requiring decades in the crossing to justify the engineering effort or the cost in fuel. Slower-than-light means that whatever civilisations spring up in other star systems as a result of mass space migrations will be wholly on their own, and they will be making do with what they've got, but that will be a considerable resource to draw upon.

[SPOOFE]

Still self distructive.

It's self destruction without nukes on the delivering end. It'll be a self destruction that the individual inflicts on himself, not one that the group inflicts on itself, and thus the species will be able to survive in near perpetuity.

[wolveraptor]

Dyson spheres? If you can make a fucking Dyson sphere, you probably have hyper-advanced cryogenics and AIs. Hell, you can probably roboticize a human, and make him live for a thousand years. That's the only way I can think of to create an interstellar Empire. Even then, military response to Rebellion would be extremely delayed. An Empire might just be impossible.

[Patrick Degan]

Without FTL in the bargain, the only "empires" will be strictly in-system. But even the space within a star system is a fairly large stage to play out the human drama.

[Darth Wong]

Bear in mind that some of our technological expertise in the last 100 years or so has acome about due to two things that are regarded as "evil" or at least undesireable: war and capitalism. Capitalism wants things produced faster and cheaper and led to the Industrial Revolution; war sped up the process by finding newer and better ways to harvest souls. Without these two things we'd still be in thatch-hut villages and afraid of the dark.

That is a popular and widely accepted idea, but it is also complete and utter bullshit. War and capitalism existed long before the industrial revolution; why was progress so badly stunted?

The reality is that the explosion in technological expertise in the last 100 years or so has come about because human scientific understanding finally reached a "critical mass" which allowed the development of certain principles that were simply unachievable before. Think about how many of our technological devices are completely dependent upon principles discovered by people like Maxwell, Newton, Avogadro, Curie, and Faraday.

Given that base, it's true that capitalist countries have generally outperformed communist countries, but a communist country with that base would have grossly and massively outperformed a capitalist country without it. Capitalism is not the primary cause of the technological explosion of the last century.

The same goes for war; it is often thought that WW2 is responsible for the atom bomb; that is utter bullshit. The basic physics principles required for the development of the atom bomb were developed by geeks in laboratories working with no military backing and no war motive. They just happened to reach critical mass at a time convenient for the American government during WW2, and they spent enough money and shanghaied enough experts to take advantage.

[tharkûn]

Corilary #1) A starsystem cannot use extrasteller colonies to supply itself with raw materials.

False. All you would need to do is establish a contract you send out the colony ship and in return they ship back a prespecified amount of raw materials and the colony is free and clear. In order to ensure compliance you launch nuclear missiles behind the ship which will disarm when they pass the large blocks of refined metal or whatever on a Sol-bound trajectory. As long as the colony has limited enough resources that they have no other option than to quickly process large amounts of whatever resource you desire, then compliance is assured.

In any event I would suspect that in the ludicriously long term fusion, transmuting elements, and robotics will be the course taken. With workable fusion reactors, even if they are huge ones, you can make energy until you run out of light elements (below iron). Transmuting elements allows you convert hydrogen (or whatever) into whatever element you like - that can then be refined, purified, and remaid into whatever you wish. The only way to remove raw material from the system would be M/AM reactions Robotics come in because you can build ships or whatever to scavange space for hyrdogen, possibly even send robotic ships out to other solar systems to come back with more material and there is no time constraint about when the fuel gets there a simple ballistic trajectory should be sufficent.

As long as such an economy has a net influx of hydrogen sufficient to meet its energy needs it can continue indefinately. Nor would you have to plan this all at once a single robot harvestor launched by an idealistic individual/NGO after scarcity approaches appreciable levels will provide sufficient return for others to try. Slowly the net can build outward.

[Zero]

Tharkun, nobody would leave on such terms, knowing that they could never come home and there would be no benefit at all for themselves. Also, you gotta figure that with the amount of time the colonists would have, they would probably be able to disarm the nukes. Either way, the resources required to send such a thing outsystem, and the energy required to get there would come from us, and I doubt that there's any reasonable amount of raw material to make up for the energy expidenture. Overall, nothing would be gained.

[Patrick Degan]

Corilary #1) A starsystem cannot use extrasteller colonies to supply itself with raw materials.

False. All you would need to do is establish a contract you send out the colony ship and in return they ship back a prespecified amount of raw materials and the colony is free and clear. In order to ensure compliance you launch nuclear missiles behind the ship which will disarm when they pass the large blocks of refined metal or whatever on a Sol-bound trajectory. As long as the colony has limited enough resources that they have no other option than to quickly process large amounts of whatever resource you desire, then compliance is assured.

Um, wrong. Star systems which are decades apart could not reasonably supply one another with sufficent tonnage of materials or goods to justify the expense and effort of the endeavour. Nor will nuclear missiles which would also have to spend decades reaching the target be seen as any sort of threat. Without FTL technology, commercial trade is impossible and military threats against another star system are ludicrous and unenforcable.

As long as such an economy has a net influx of hydrogen sufficient to meet its energy needs it can continue indefinately.

The atmospheres of gas-giant planets should suffice for such a supply into the indefinite future.