Human colonization of space - an anachronism ?

[Sarevok]

I was watching a concept aircraft with flapping wings on the discovery channel. Which was neat since for centuries this is how people wanted to build a flying craft. But by the time dream to fly like a bird was achieved it was rendered irrelevant by supersonic jets. Could it be possible human cities on mars and asteroids could go same way ? Computer science is making rapid progress and even by pessimistic estimates a true AI might be built within one or two centuries. Machines don't have any of the problems people suffer outside of Earth. Could it be possible by the time human cities on other worlds become possible it would be rendered irrelevant because humanity as we know it has grown into something else ?

[Coyote]

It's possible, but we'd have to have some means to stabilize our effects on the ecology of Earth. Either by having an event or method that seriously cuts back our population while allowing us to maintain our technological and industrial base... while simultaneously protecting the environment.

In other words, if we reach stable, sustainable, high-standard population stagnation here, then there's no need to colonize othe rplanets.

But if human population growth continues, even with the ability to harmonize with the environment, we'll eventually have to go somewhere else. Without the ability to harmonize with the environment, we'll have to do it even quicker, still.

On the plus side, we could develop robots and machines to terraform planets out into space so they'll be ready, or near-ready, by the time we need to send population there. But that means we'd have to get building those machines now. It also means we'd have to be ready to move large numbers of population to these new planets for the express purpose of alleviating resource strain on Earth, which will be a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Forum Troll]

It's tricky to say whether major human colonization of space or true AGI comes first, since both are well within foreseeable technology this century. However, friendly AIs building mass space launch capability and building space colonies would also mean people could come along. (The main exception is if there's a takeover by hostile AIs instead, like Skynet).

So far, there has been sending up a small number of machines and a small number of astronauts, but, if you progressed beyond rockets to send huge numbers of machines into space, you could also send many people, retrieving and colonizing asteroids.

In event of advanced AI, though, what could happen is a transformation of humanity. While hostile AGI becoming dominant would just kill everybody, controlled or friendly AGI would help people upgrade themselves. Posthumans are commonly envisioned by transhumanists.

[Forum Troll]

There's actually a whole other question here, and that is what would humanity become if transitioning to posthumans.

My guess: Short of utterly rewiring the mind for what is found attractive (which most people might hesitate to do even if it became technically possible), humans 2.0 would intentionally retain a mostly near-human appearance even while changing themselves internally. You may like being radiation resistant. You might (maybe) even like wings for flight in low-gravity. Yet if upgraded from an originally human mind, you probably don't want to look so alien as to appear ugly or just be a hard metal body all the time.

Also, at a minimum, changes would influence the design of space colonies, or, if you did terraform Mars, exactly how much you have to terraform it. Even now, it is noticeable that the amount of atmospheric pressure having to be contained in a space habitat is decreased drastically if you used colonists already acclimated to lower oxygen partial pressure than terrestrial sea level, like some people are in high-altitude mountainous areas. Modify bodies a bit, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[TheMuffinKing]

IMHO human expansion into space will always be necessary. Having humans spread throughout habitable space in colonies on ships and planets leaves us less vulnerable to a single catastrophic event, greatly enhancing our probability of survival as a species. Keeping in mind posthumanism, I feel that advances towards this end would be a great boon to those already colonizing space and to those about to leave for the stars. I do, however, believe that we should begin colonization as soon as we have the feasible means to do so.

Now about giant sprawling human cities on other worlds... I believe this is inevitable where conditions allow it.

[Alferd Packer]

It's possible, but we'd have to have some means to stabilize our effects on the ecology of Earth. Either by having an event or method that seriously cuts back our population while allowing us to maintain our technological and industrial base... while simultaneously protecting the environment.

In other words, if we reach stable, sustainable, high-standard population stagnation here, then there's no need to colonize othe rplanets.

Sure there is. We need the species to survive. Rather, it is a fundamental goal of the species to survive, and getting off-world permanently is the next step. There are no guarantees of success, of course, but our species' odds do go up, the more off-world colonies we establish. Let Earth be sustainable and stagnant, but get another sustainable population offworld somewhere.

[Sarevok]

'Keeping humans alive outside of Earth requires tremendous efforts. Beyond aesthetics the human anatomy is not required. On Earth organisms lost their fins and gills when they moved to land, evolution has continued to grant new useful features and discard old ones that became liability. So would not humans living in space also adapt via technology since it is more efficient ? I am not saying everyone will but those that do will have an advantage and will increase in greater numbers and overshadow old humanity. For example if someone was making a colony settlement in another star system a posthuman in form of a living spacecraft would have so much advantages over a sleeper or generation ship such beings would be way ahead of the human colonization wave. Exotic beings derived from humans could become the dominant feature on distant worlds instead of classic scifi images of domed cities and people in space suits walking on the surface.

[Stark]

Oh dear, posthumans.

If Sarevok's point is that space exploration or colonisation is far easier if you don't have to worry about squishy bits, he's absolutely right. It's extremely unlikely human extrasolar colonisation will ever become practical in any more than a 'we went here' sense.

[Kitsune]

I don't really get what you are saying. First off, even where we are talking about nearby colonization of star systems, we are talking about hundreds maybe thousands of years. In either case, that is not enough time for evolution to really act on a species to make it truly different. Humans, even in isolated areas, are not really appreciable different than humans elsewhere in the world, and in some cases the humans have been isolated for several thousand years...Thinking of the native Australian population.

[TheMuffinKing]

'Keeping humans alive outside of Earth requires tremendous efforts. Beyond aesthetics the human anatomy is not required. On Earth organisms lost their fins and gills when they moved to land, evolution has continued to grant new useful features and discard old ones that became liability. So would not humans living in space also adapt via technology since it is more efficient ? I am not saying everyone will but those that do will have an advantage and will increase in greater numbers and overshadow old humanity. For example if someone was making a colony settlement in another star system a posthuman in form of a living spacecraft would have so much advantages over a sleeper or generation ship such beings would be way ahead of the human colonization wave. Exotic beings derived from humans could become the dominant feature on distant worlds instead of classic scifi images of domed cities and people in space suits walking on the surface.

I find this to be an intriguing idea. What do you mean by a posthuman in form of a living spacecraft? I think I'm misinterpreting this idea in my head.

[TheMuffinKing]

I don't really get what you are saying. First off, even where we are talking about nearby colonization of star systems, we are talking about hundreds maybe thousands of years. In either case, that is not enough time for evolution to really act on a species to make it truly different. Humans, even in isolated areas, are not really appreciable different than humans elsewhere in the world, and in some cases the humans have been isolated for several thousand years...Thinking of the native Australian population.

I think Sarevok means custom designed or manufactured organisms. By the introduction of posthuman ideas in this thread, who knows what humanity could achieve.

[Darth Ruinus]

I find this to be an intriguing idea. What do you mean by a posthuman in form of a living spacecraft? I think I'm misinterpreting this idea in my head.

I'm picturing an intelligent spaceship, similar to a Mind in the Culture books.

[Stark]

I don't really get what you are saying. First off, even where we are talking about nearby colonization of star systems, we are talking about hundreds maybe thousands of years. In either case, that is not enough time for evolution to really act on a species to make it truly different. Humans, even in isolated areas, are not really appreciable different than humans elsewhere in the world, and in some cases the humans have been isolated for several thousand years...Thinking of the native Australian population.

If humans either modify themselves to better explore space or create intelligent machines or whatever, they will have 'changed'.

[Sky Captain]

If nothing else then space colonization can be viewed as an insurance of species survival in case of some massive disaster here on Earth. If we have self sustaining colonies on other planets or in space habitats then it`s highly unlikely for some disaster to wipe out all humans. In the end it do not really matter whether humans living in those colonies are cyborgs or not.

[Forum Troll]

If nothing else then space colonization can be viewed as an insurance of species survival in case of some massive disaster here on Earth.

Has this ever been used as a reason for expansion in the past? I see it brought up in space colonization threads very often, but am not convinced it is how people actually think.

Did the British colonies have 'well if anything ever happens to England, the Empire will live on' as a goal, for example?

(At the same time, even if not explicitly stated, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some subconscious want to expand shoved in there by evolution which could give it validity.)

I haven't heard of that exactly, but European colonization motives included (a) resources for the homeland (b) some of particular religious / political ideologies wanting to get away from everybody else (c) national prestige. All can potentially be applicable to space to varying degrees, though mostly dependent on reduction in the cost of space access first.

In modern history, the amount of resources directed towards goals of non-immediate benefit has been a relatively tiny proportion of the total world economy but still billions of dollars total annually. Funding for pure science, for the preservation of endangered species, et cetera.

Extensive underground constructions were made in the U.S. and particularly in the Soviet Union to help national survival.

Of course, the greatest potential motivation for space colonization is other factors of more direct gain, like solar power from space, tourism, immediate gains in national prestige, et cetera. Even military advantage could be a big deal depending upon how the future plays out.

[Zixinus]

Colonization has always been pushed by overpopulation and lack of resources to manage that population.

In this case, the traditional equation for colonization does not apply for space travel: only the richest may travel and the rich already have enough resources to support themselves.

What my humble mind predicts is that colonization will only happen once a very extensive infrastructure has developed for processing off-Earth resources (astredoid mining anyone?). When you have enough people on say, Mars that's a convenient Hohmann-orbit point (or so I read somewhere), to make underground colonization save money on the long run, then it will likely happen.

[Forum Troll]

In this case, the traditional equation for colonization does not apply for space travel: only the richest may travel and the rich already have enough resources to support themselves.

Even a millionaire retiree who wants to float around outside his terrestrial wheelchair and live in low-g can't do so without workers to support him. On merchant ships today, we see the crewmembers themselves are not the rich but rather usually poor people (mostly from third-world countries) who are willing to put up with limited accomodations. A spacestation may need fairly skilled and educated workers, but the operators may find that an Indian or Chinese engineer is willing to work for less pay and accept smaller onboard crew quarters than an American.

In the European colonization of North America, there was a mixture of people, ranging from the wealthy to people who paid for the expensive journey by becoming indentured servants, paying off a debt that might be equivalent to tens of thousands of dollars in modern terms by years of work afterward. Like about anything else in 17th century society, the indentured servitude of the time involved abuses unacceptable by modern standards, but a similar principle of borrowing multiple years wages in loans is certainly common enough today.

Right now, space colonization doesn't happen at all, rich or non-rich, because neither can afford it. On the other hand, if there were large space colonies built by near earth asteroids towed into orbit, so you're not sending up additional hardware so much as mostly just sending up people to work on the resources up there, the criteria for practical immigration drops to just whether somebody can get a ride into space for under like $100000 and then pay off the debt by future work.

There's a ways to go to reach that point, both in terms of the space infrastructure and in terms of the launch expense. Virgin Galactic is selling suborbital tickets now for $200000, much better than the millions of dollars minimum of the old days. Of course, orbital velocity is 5 times higher than Virgin Galactic's craft obtain (though many methods wouldn't involve rockets for more than a portion of the total), so affordable LEO trips are farther off.

[Forum Troll]

What my humble mind predicts is that colonization will only happen once a very extensive infrastructure has developed for processing off-Earth resources (astredoid mining anyone?). When you have enough people on say, Mars that's a convenient Hohmann-orbit point (or so I read somewhere), to make underground colonization save money on the long run, then it will likely happen.

Mass numbers of people definitely depend on the infrastructure, indeed.

In the 1960s and 1970s, space colonization plans focused on sending up humans from the start, and they focused on usage of the Moon (sometimes Mars but mostly the Moon, given the shorter travel times, et cetera). Since then, two major things have changed:

1. In the 1980s, people started looking specifically for near earth objects and actually found a number that are at times about as close as the Moon in terms of velocity expenditure, which were unknown in prior decades. Such include NEOs with volatiles not present on the Moon.

2. With the more recent advancement of electronics, telerobots are being worked on by multiple research groups.

Why send up countless astronauts to work on constructing your first big spacestation if you can instead send up a bunch of a remote-controlled telerobots not needing large crew quarters or life support, never sleeping, working around the clock controlled by multiple shifts of ground workers?

Since light travels at 186000 miles a second, they wouldn't work at great distance, but the teleoperation would be practically realtime (under 0.1 second delay) in earth orbit.

So initial space infrastructure is most efficiently built by remotely operated robots plus a minimal number of human workers. After that, once it is built, only then it would be time to permanently send up really large numbers of people, once the easier part begins when the infrastructure already exists and when there is an asteroid parked in earth orbit.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, such colonization efforts are likely to be state backed, so the real question is just how diverse a mission the state wish to back. Do they just want to get rid of all the lower classes, or create a colony of high intelligent people on the idea that such a colony will have a higher chance of success? There are lots of issues to address, particularly in the sustainability of such mission.

[Sky Captain]

There also could be very strong economical motivation to colonize space, for example what if some near Earth asteroid turns to be very rich in expensive rare earth metals critically needed for high tech industry. This potentially could provide very strong motivation to develop cheaper launch methods to make possible off world resource extraction.