Starship Asterisk*

Nitpicker wrote:For those who think artificial intelligence will one day become a reality, it is possible that the lack of visiting or invading extraterrestrial robots, is also a very relevant bit of evidence hinting that AI may be unlikely.

Or simply that AI is as unstable and short lived as natural.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:For those who think artificial intelligence will one day become a reality, it is possible that the lack of visiting or invading extraterrestrial robots, is also a very relevant bit of evidence hinting that AI may be unlikely.

Or simply that AI is as unstable and short lived as natural.

Fairy nuff. I find the concept of unstable and short-lived A.I. strangely reassuring.

supamario wrote:

geckzilla wrote:If anyone here is working on or knows of anyone working on feasible FTL or wormhole travel, we might have a discussion. Otherwise, it's just some kind of weird science faith that sci-fi will somehow eventually come true. Believe that if you want but don't try to tell the rest of us we are wrong for taking a look at the facts and saying it doesn't look very likely.

And Galileo shall remain imprisoned unless someone is working on a "space probe", what nonsense, to prove his utterly ridiculous notion of a heliocentric system.

Look, this is not religious dogma. I'm not saying that there is a dusty old book somewhere that forbids space travel to ever happen. You're also not Galileo. There are some pretty big differences here and your analogy falls flat. This is a mainstream science forum and wormholes are currently not part of mainstream science so either take it to off topic (open space) or stop.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Boomer12k wrote:At 500 ly, I think it is going to be awhile until we have anything near able to get there in a reasonable time frame

Where "awhile" equals "never".

Well, when considering current culture and technology, "never" might be true in a practical sense. But "never" I think is too pessimistic to be strictly true.

If we survive and stabilize our society so that we learn to live sustainably on Earth, we may have time to develop enough to be able to reach out and colonize the galaxy.

Even if we never develop FTL technology (which seems likely), we may be able to reach other star systems through a variety of science fiction ideas which I'm not so sure are necessarily impossible.

Generation ships could reach remote star systems... But then, the people who leave won't be the ones who reach the destination. Only the descendants of the original passengers will arrive at the destination. That generation will dream incessantly of the Earth they came from ... maybe they would hate us for "casting them out of heaven". Who would ever doom their lives and the lives of their descendants to life away from the "paradise" of Earth? Would that be ethically justifiable? I don't know ... but technically it is plausible. Challenging, risky, but not implausible.

Perhaps we will learn to extend our lives... perhaps to a degree that we would currently consider to be astounding. Perhaps we will develop some way to preserve people alive through some form of "suspended animation".

And then, if we expect to have a permanent presense in a remote star system, we'll also need to develop the ability to terraform planets. Far far future. Those who arrive in a remote star system will live out their existence in spacecraft and in burried colonies while planets in the system are evolved into habitable environments. Terraforming, I think, at best, would take centuries.

Can humanity engage in endeavors that condemn entire generations to barren and confined existence for the benefit of descendents who will be the only ones to enjoy the benefit?

I'm skeptical. But, still, the chances are better than "never".

-s

Spif wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Boomer12k wrote:At 500 ly, I think it is going to be awhile until we have anything near able to get there in a reasonable time frame

Where "awhile" equals "never".

...

Terraforming, I think, at best, would take centuries.

Can humanity engage in endeavors that condemn entire lives to barren and confined existence for the benefit of descendents who will be the only onces to enjoy the benefit?

Ah yes, and then what about robotics? Perhaps we could send robots to remote systems to terraform them so that they are ready to live in when we get there.

This is a few thousand years away, but still, better than "never".

-s

Spif wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Boomer12k wrote:(snip)
Can humanity engage in endeavors that condemn entire lives to barren and confined existence for the benefit of descendents who will be the only onces to enjoy the benefit?

I'm skeptical. But, still, the chances are better "never".

-s

This is actually a very similar proposition to what is being discussed today in the blogosphere WRT Climate Change and how current populations are being subjected to the probability of significantly higher energy costs through the institution of Clean Energy Programs (like Wind & Solar) which are only cost competitive through government subsidization, Subsidies that ultimately come from your pocket as the funding is from your tax dollars. And through the taxation of Carbon (CO2) to drive up the cost of fossil fuel consumption to match the cost of "Greener" energy sources. This is being done not for our benefit but for the benefit of our descendants which have yet to be born. Many people aren't willing to "bite the bullet" for someone 10 generations away.
In the case of a generational ship, our current technology would take 44,000 years to reach the next closest star. At 1 generation every 20 years or 500 generations every 10,000 years it would take over 2000 generations to reach Alpha Centauri, Then if the planets weren't compatible or terraformable, then it is another several thousand generations to the next system.

Spif wrote:This is a few thousand years away, but still, better than "never".

History teaches me that civilizations don't have lifetimes measured in thousands of years. Centuries at best. And I see nothing that makes me believe that our current civilization will be around long enough to engage in projects on this scale.

Realistically, I'm sticking with "never".

BMAONE23 wrote:This is actually a very similar proposition to what is being discussed today in the blogosphere WRT Climate Change and how current populations are being subjected to the probability of significantly higher energy costs through the institution of Clean Energy Programs (like Wind & Solar) which are only cost competitive through government subsidization, Subsidies that ultimately come from your pocket as the funding is from your tax dollars. And through the taxation of Carbon (CO2) to drive up the cost of fossil fuel consumption to match the cost of "Greener" energy sources. This is being done not for our benefit but for the benefit of our descendants which have yet to be born. Many people aren't willing to "bite the bullet" for someone 10 generations away.
...

I would find it a direct personal benefit to live in a world that is turning toward balance and health rather than deeper into chaos and mass extinction.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:I would find it a direct personal benefit to live in a world that is turning toward balance and health rather than deeper into chaos and mass extinction.

Indeed. And if we don't institute some very high prices on fossil fuels, to reflect their actual costs, it's very certain that our current civilization will not be around much longer. Humans won't be a part of the mass extinction we are causing, but our societies need look nothing like what we have today.

But if we raise the price of energy beyond the affordability of the poor, the only options they will have are
1) Burn wood for heat and cooking. (Removing trees from the carbon sink and adding smoke particulates and CO2 into the air)
2) Freeze and don't cook (a die off of the poor masses that can't afford energy)
3) War for affordable energy rights

BMAONE23 wrote:But if we raise the price of energy beyond the affordability of the poor, the only options they will have are
1) Burn wood for heat and cooking. (Removing trees from the carbon sink and adding smoke particulates and CO2 into the air)
2) Freeze and don't cook (a die off of the poor masses that can't afford energy)
3) War for affordable energy rights

You presume that no other options exist, which need not be the case. We already massively subsidize fossil fuels. We can simply shift those subsidies for the time being to low-carbon alternatives. We can also institute social policy changes so that there are many fewer poor people. This is not a problem lacking practical solutions.

Who is the artist who created the illustration, please?

lwaynebuinis wrote:Who is the artist who created the illustration, please?

You'd have better luck sending an email to someone involved in the discovery or press release than asking here. If it's even listed anywhere then it's probably pretty hard to find.

Chris Peterson wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:But if we raise the price of energy beyond the affordability of the poor, the only options they will have are
1) Burn wood for heat and cooking. (Removing trees from the carbon sink and adding smoke particulates and CO2 into the air)
2) Freeze and don't cook (a die off of the poor masses that can't afford energy)
3) War for affordable energy rights

You presume that no other options exist, which need not be the case. We already massively subsidize fossil fuels. We can simply shift those subsidies for the time being to low-carbon alternatives. We can also institute social policy changes so that there are many fewer poor people. This is not a problem lacking practical solutions.

In 2006 the California state legislature passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed, Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which established a cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the money raised was allocated to give utility customers a rebate. Last month my gas and electricity bill was $0.00, with a small credit left over to reduce next month's bill. The extra money is mine to do with as I see fit, but in my bill there was information about energy conservation steps I could take at home (many of which are free or low-cost, again because of subsidies from the cap and trade system). I don't know that cap and trade is necessarily the best system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but I am proud to live in a state where both major political parties negotiated a compromise to do something to address global warming.

Happy Earth Day.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:In 2006 the California state legislature passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed, Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which established a cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the money raised was allocated to give utility customers a rebate. Last month my gas and electricity bill was $0.00, with a small credit left over to reduce next month's bill. The extra money is mine to do with as I see fit, but in my bill there was information about energy conservation steps I could take at home (many of which are free or low-cost, again because of subsidies from the cap and trade system). I don't know that cap and trade is necessarily the best system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but I am proud to live in a state where both major political parties negotiated a compromise to do something to address global warming.

Cap and trade is widely credited with being the primary factor in the massive reductions in air and water pollution in the northeast U.S. after the 1970s. There is no doubt that it can work if properly implemented.

Chris Peterson wrote:Cap and trade is widely credited with being the primary factor in the massive reductions in air and water pollution in the northeast U.S. after the 1970s. There is no doubt that it can work if properly implemented.

Again, I don't know much about all the ins and outs of different economic strategies. But I have read that it is much easier to identify, regulate, and price the specific pollutants that cause acid rain than it is to identify, regulate, and price everything that contributes to global warming. There's also the concern that the universe of potential global warming offsets, such as planting trees half way around the world, is so broad as to invite unscrupulous players to game the system. Some well-respected people who have devoted their lives to addressing climate change think that a carbon tax would be more effective. Here's an interesting discussion among proponents of both approaches, from the Yale school of forestry and environmental studies.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:Again, I don't know much about all the ins and outs of different economic strategies. But I have read that it is much easier to identify, regulate, and price the specific pollutants that cause acid rain than it is to identify, regulate, and price everything that contributes to global warming. There's also the concern that the universe of potential global warming offsets, such as planting trees half way around the world, is so broad as to invite unscrupulous players to game the system. Some well-respected people who have devoted their lives to addressing climate change think that a carbon tax would be more effective. Here's an interesting discussion among proponents of both approaches, from the Yale school of forestry and environmental studies.

I believe a carbon tax is the best strategy. But above all, I believe in doing something. Anything is better than the current nothing.

Chris Peterson wrote:I believe a carbon tax is the best strategy. But above all, I believe in doing something. Anything is better than the current nothing.

Yes, doing something is the most important thing. And lots of individuals, communities, and even governments around the world are doing lots of things to respond to global warming. It's not enough, and there are heartbreaking examples of powerful interests denying the reality of global warming and obstructing solutions, but I need these positive example in order to remain hopeful and not to succumb to nihilism.