Stephen Hawking says mankind has 100 years left on Earth. Thanks, Steve.

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The complete list is of course much, much longer.

Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and we're burning through the resources here at utterly unsustainable rates.

My personal bet is that we'll only manage to send a relatively tiny number of people into space before we start yet another war and bomb each other back into the Stone Age, part deux.

They will be unable to help at first for fear of being drawn in and as time goes on, increasingly unwilling.

The fate of at least 99% of humanity is sealed, because we're too greedy and selfish as a species to rein in our excesses, certainly not in time to avert disaster.
Click to expand...
There are a host of issues that crop up living in microgravity. Bone loss, uneven blood flow, immunity system degrades, liver and kidney dysfunction. On top of that, radiation exposure. We aren't ready for space colonization. A hundred years isn't enough time to fully understand the issues, much less solve these problems. I'd like to think that we can but progress for the past 50 years has been abysmal. Let's try to live on one planet before we move on.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
And so, Trump sets back policy almost a hundred years. Because science is hard.

EPA dismisses half of key board’s scientific advisers; Interior suspends more than 200 advisory panels

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/?utm_term=.b629e65915df

“The Secretary is committed to restoring trust in the Department’s decision-making and that begins with institutionalizing state and local input and ongoing collaboration, particularly in communities surrounding public lands,” Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift said by email Monday. “As the Department concludes its review in the weeks ahead, agencies will notice future meetings to ensure that the Department continues to get the benefit of the views of local communities in all decision-making on public land management.”

Ahhhhaaahaaahaaaaaa

"We'll restore trust by controlling the message" Science community can't agree with the administration's claim that man's burning of fossil fuels is not causing climate change. Or they won't budge on recognizing that large migratory species like Caribou need calving grounds in order to survive. Therefore, we'll stack the commission with industrialists and ranchers who are more agreeable.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
There are a host of issues that crop up living in microgravity. Bone loss, uneven blood flow, immunity system degrades, liver and kidney dysfunction. On top of that, radiation exposure. We aren't ready for space colonization. A hundred years isn't enough time to fully understand the issues, much less solve these problems. I'd like to think that we can but progress for the past 50 years has been abysmal. Let's try to live on one planet before we move on.
Click to expand...
Artificial gravity using centrifugal force. We haven't put much effort into learning to live in space- certainly not composted to what we spend on 'defense', aka imperialism.

We're not doing such a hot job of living on one planet, in case you haven't noticed.

Of course we need to learn to get along. We also need to hedge our survival of the species bets in case we don't.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
And so, Trump sets back policy almost a hundred years. Because science is hard.

EPA dismisses half of key board’s scientific advisers; Interior suspends more than 200 advisory panels

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/?utm_term=.b629e65915df

“The Secretary is committed to restoring trust in the Department’s decision-making and that begins with institutionalizing state and local input and ongoing collaboration, particularly in communities surrounding public lands,” Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift said by email Monday. “As the Department concludes its review in the weeks ahead, agencies will notice future meetings to ensure that the Department continues to get the benefit of the views of local communities in all decision-making on public land management.”

Ahhhhaaahaaahaaaaaa

"We'll restore trust by controlling the message" Science community can't agree with the administration's claim that man's burning of fossil fuels is not causing climate change. Or that large migratory species like Caribou need calving grounds in order to survive. Therefore, we'll stack the commission with industrialists and ranchers who are more agreeable.
Click to expand...
How do we put science in the public interest beyond the reach of politicians who want to meddle with it for their own ends?

I TOLD you we aren't doing a good job of living on one planet! Lol
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Artificial gravity using centrifugal force. We haven't put much effort into learning to live in space- certainly not composted to what we spend on 'defense', aka imperialism.

We're not doing such a hot job of living on one planet, in case you haven't noticed.

Of course we need to learn to get along. We also need to hedge our bet in case we don't.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that the human species has to move into space. Completely agree.

Just looking at how much progress we've made in 50 years on this subject and I think that a hundred years isn't enough.

If we had gone to the moon and established a base for researching this very topic, we would be much farther along. So it's more a matter of commitment than ability.

I've been involved in several scale-ups of new technologies and learned that problems get worse, not easier if they aren't solved before scaling up. Our problems go much farther than technical. If we can't live together on the planet, how can we expect to do so when confined in a metal can in space?

I don't think we are ready. I think we many problems to resolve here before we move out. I support research and small scale bases that are close enough to earth so that we can learn and iterate solutions.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I don't disagree that the human species has to move into space. Completely agree.

Just looking at how much progress we've made in 50 years on this subject and I think that a hundred years isn't enough.

If we had gone to the moon and established a base for researching this very topic, we would be much farther along. So it's more a matter of commitment than ability.

I've been involved in several scale-ups of new technologies and learned that problems get worse, not easier if they aren't solved before scaling up. Our problems go much farther than technical. If we can't live together on the planet, how can we expect to do so when confined in a metal can in space?

I don't think we are ready. I think we many problems to resolve here before we move out. I support research and small scale bases that are close enough to earth so that we can learn and iterate solutions.
Click to expand...
Mars has similar enough conditions to Earth to be survivable, especially if we bury habitat structures under the surface.

Add in the water ice and CO2 based atmosphere and you only need protection from the extreme swings in hot and cold, which isn't as much of an issue in a sealed structure.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
How do we put science in the public interest beyond the reach of politicians who want to meddle with it for their own ends?

I TOLD you we aren't doing a good job of living on one planet! Lol
Click to expand...
There are laws on the books requiring government agencies to use valid scientific information when making policy and regulations. Apparently, we need to vote in officials that will follow the law.

Outside groups can and will sue, citing the law and slow done the luddites. So, it's working but not as we'd like.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Mars has similar enough conditions to Earth to be survivable, especially if we bury habitat structures under the surface.

Add in the water ice and CO2 based atmosphere and you only need protection from the extreme swings in hot and cold, which isn't as much of an issue in a sealed structure.
Click to expand...
We don't know what we don't know.

What we don't know can kill.

For instance, microflora in our gut. We hardly know anything about them and what they provide that is necessary for our health. Go to Mars and learn the hard way?

Past generations have used the populace to learn what we didn't know. Troops were lined up and deliberately exposed to nuclear blast radiation. Chemical waste dumps were once thought to be safe and now they are superfund sites. What the hell is going on with gluten and people getting sick?

We aren't ready.

Just moving a plant indoors and trying to provide a few essentials for survival is hard. On earth, with an atmosphere and relatively short time required to get it through the life cycle. And we still learn. It wasn't very long ago that narrow wavelength lights were the bee's knees. Turns out plants do better in full spectrum light. And we don't really know why.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
We don't know what we don't know.

What we don't know can kill.

For instance, microflora in our gut. We hardly know anything about them and what they provide that is necessary for our health. Go to Mars and learn the hard way?

Past generations have used the populace to learn what we didn't know. Troops were lined up and deliberately exposed to nuclear blast radiation. Chemical waste dumps were once thought to be safe and now they are superfund sites. What the hell is going on with gluten and people getting sick?

We aren't ready.

Just moving a plant indoors and trying to provide a few essentials for survival is hard. On earth, with an atmosphere and relatively short time required to get it through the life cycle. And we still learn. It wasn't very long ago that narrow wavelength lights were the bee's knees. Turns out plants do better in full spectrum light. And we don't really know why.
Click to expand...
Your pessimism is disappointing.

No-one said it would be easy, but it's not exactly hard either.

Seriously, Mars is largely just an unbreathable atmosphere, it's the trip there that's potentially harmful.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Your pessimism is disappointing.

No-one said it would be easy, but it's not exactly hard either.

Seriously, Mars is largely just an unbreathable atmosphere, it's the trip there that's potentially harmful.
Click to expand...
Am I pessimistic? I think it's more a matter of will and commitment than impossible. I'm just saying that before putting people's lives on the line in space or other worlds, we need to know more about how we are sustained on this planet. Mars is too far away to respond if we get the system wrong or leave out a necessary component for long term survival.

Why do some people develop gluten intolerance? I don't mean Crohn's, where the person is allergic to a protein, I mean the 30% of the population that is becoming sickened by modern bread packaged foods that contain gluten. It's an interesting issue, because many people with gluten intolerance don't become sick when they eat traditionally prepared sourdough. We think of food as a nutrient delivery package but there is more to it than that.

A colony of graves on Mars would be a greater set back to space exploration than the current fiscal climate.
 
Last edited:
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Am I pessimistic? I think it's more a matter of will and commitment than impossible. I'm just saying that before putting people's lives on the line in space or other worlds, we need to know more about how we are sustained on this planet. Mars is too far away to respond if we get the system wrong or leave out a necessary component for long term survival.

Why do some people develop gluten intolerance? I don't mean Crohn's, where the person is allergic to a protein, I mean the 30% of the population that is becoming sickened by modern bread packaged foods that contain gluten. It's an interesting issue, because many people with gluten intolerance don't become sick when they eat traditionally prepared sourdough. We think of food as a nutrient delivery package but there is more to it than that.

A colony of graves on Mars would be a greater set back to space exploration than the current fiscal climate.
Click to expand...

Because nobody died making it to the moon. :roll:
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Am I pessimistic? I think it's more a matter of will and commitment than impossible. I'm just saying that before putting people's lives on the line in space or other worlds, we need to know more about how we are sustained on this planet. Mars is too far away to respond if we get the system wrong or leave out a necessary component for long term survival.

Why do some people develop gluten intolerance? I don't mean Crohn's, where the person is allergic to a protein, I mean the 30% of the population that is becoming sickened by modern bread packaged foods that contain gluten. It's an interesting issue, because many people with gluten intolerance don't become sick when they eat traditionally prepared sourdough. We think of food as a nutrient delivery package but there is more to it than that.

A colony of graves on Mars would be a greater set back to space exploration than the current fiscal climate.
Click to expand...
So we can't go to Mars because "Coeliacs"?

Come on, lol.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
So we can't go to Mars because "Coeliacs"?

Come on, lol.
Click to expand...
Actually, sustaining health in an artificial environment is not trivial. We're just now learning about health and well being as a system. A failure of technology and many technologists is they are completely devoted to solving individual problems and not thinking of the system. You want to put people in cans in space and wing it. You should listen to scientists more closely. The ones closest to the issues say we aren't ready.

A base on the moon? the perfect lab for learning how to survive in space. Yet still close enough to react to those dang gotchas.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Actually, sustaining health in an artificial environment is not trivial. We're just now learning about health and well being as a system. A failure of technology and many technologists is they are completely devoted to solving individual problems and not thinking of the system. You want to put people in cans in space and wing it. You should listen to scientists more closely. The ones closest to the issues say we aren't ready.

A base on the moon? the perfect lab for learning how to survive in space. Yet still close enough to react to those dang gotchas.
Click to expand...
Absolutely a matter of commitment rather then capability.

The necessity of war undoubtedly accelerated the development of aerospace technology.

I hope- fervently- that the same isn't necessary for inhabiting space.
 
JaJaJaJa

JaJaJaJa

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
An easier option would be to reduce the population of Earth by 90%...or higher.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Need one of those 'mad scientists' to get busy. Doesn't need to be something that kills people, but a virus that sterilized 95% of the population might be nice. The Earth WILL be ruined within a few hundred years if the population keeps going up at current rates. The answer isn't to colonize space though. It's much easier to just deal with the overpopulation problem. Space exploration as a whole is still worth investment though because we might need to deflect an asteroid or comet at some point in the future. Colonizing Mars is just a pipe dream though. The lower gravity alone is a huge technological hurdle to overcome. There are also ethical problems such as "would it be right to have children on Mars"? Nobody knows enough about the impact of lesser gravity upon pregnancy and child development.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
JaJaJaJa said:
Agreed. Need one of those 'mad scientists' to get busy. The Earth WILL be ruined within a few hundred years if the population keeps going up at current rates. The answer isn't to colonize space though. It's much easier to just deal with the overpopulation problem. Space exploration as a whole is still worth investment though because we might need to deflect an asteroid or comet at some point in the future. Colonizing Mars is just a pipe dream though. The lower gravity alone is a huge technological hurdle to overcome. There are also ethical problems such as "would it be right to have children on Mars"? Nobody knows enough about the impact of lesser gravity upon pregnancy and child development.
Click to expand...
OK, so you go first. post it on Facebook and let us know when to start watching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top