Useless intellectual work

[grondilu]

I suggest trying to build a dyson sphere that absorb the entire energy of the sun instead. With the dyson sphere, we'll build more and more desirable space to live using the entire resources of the solar system.

So we'll have to master interstellar travel because we don't have enough matter in our own solar system to build a dyson sphere.

Should I bother googling "Dyson Sphere" ?  Or can I just ignore that ?

[1714022037]

1714022037

[1714022037]

1714022037

[1714022037]

1714022037

[1714022037]

1714022037

[kiba]

I suggest trying to build a dyson sphere that absorb the entire energy of the sun instead. With the dyson sphere, we'll build more and more desirable space to live using the entire resources of the solar system.

So we'll have to master interstellar travel because we don't have enough matter in our own solar system to build a dyson sphere.

Or parallel universe travel! Imagine the possibility of using exotic matters to construct our dyson sphere!

[genjix]

I assure you it's not propaganda- it's quite possible given our current technology. Mars Direct would place the first habitating humans on Mars for the cost of $55 billion over 10 years. NASA's current budget is $13 billion and luckily they've now set Mars by mid 2030 in their scope.

Unlike the Moon, Mars has an atmosphere which you use to create rocket fuel and oxygen, water, minerals for plastics and metals, earth-like day of 24 hours and 0 deg celsius at the tropics (higher deep in canyons!). It's truly the next step and well within our grasp.

$10 billion / year is a drop in the ocean compared to the annual war budget of $650 billion (plain disgusting), so it's sad to see you attack science that's helping us spread forth to other worlds and expanding out as a race. Stay on Earth and our resources will run dry. We attack our neighbours for what limited resources there are because we will see them as competitors for survival- a rascist world compared to the resource abundant one where humanity is global brotherhood pooling our brains to come up with new creative solutions.

An asteroid hits the Earth and we all die out. Nice while it lasted.

[grondilu]

$10 billion / year is a drop in the ocean compared to the annual war budget of $650 billion (plain disgusting), so it's sad to see you attack science that's helping us spread forth to other worlds and expanding out as a race. Stay on Earth and our resources will run dry. We attack our neighbours for what limited resources there are because we will see them as competitors for survival- a rascist world compared to the resource abundant one where humanity is global brotherhood pooling our brains to come up with new creative solutions.

It doesn't help us to spread in any way.  It tries, but so far it has been a fantastic failure.  And if $10 billion / year is that little of an amount of money, why don't scientists just finance it themselves, instead of stealing it from non-scientists ?  And as far ar war budget is concerned, this is not an excuse.  A bad doesn't justify an other bad.

When I see how humans are unable to just put some solar cells in Sahara for instance, or to explore resources in deep oceans, to me it just stupid to announce they want to go to Mars.  This IS propaganda, you just don't realise it.  They will spend trillions of tax money to go there, they will put a nice flag on the surface, and then they will eventually come back to Earth, litteraly.

There is almost no resource on Mars.  Water ?  Maybe.  Minerals ?  Sure.  But most of the energy we use comes from the Sun (and we don't have to go to Mars to get it) and from fossilized biomass.  Now, here is some news for you :  THERE IS NO BIOMASS ON MARS !   It is nothing else than a huge desertic place.  Show me you can fertilize the Sahara, and then I might take you seriously when you talk about going to Mars.

And again, I'm still waiting for you to justify why you would have the right to force me, via taxation, to work in order to help you to fullfill your silly dreams.

Human is a life form and as any life form it tends to spread.  But as any life form it is designed to spread in a earth-like environnement, not a huge 0°C cold, irradiated, 1% thick atmosphered, unoxygened, nolifed land.

An asteroid hits the Earth and we all die out. Nice while it lasted.

Well this is a nice allegory of life, because I have an other big news for you :  we will all die anyway.

Don't worry about what could happen in a few billion years.  You will probably die in less than a century, anyway.  You'd better start living with this idea.  Enjoy present life, carpe diem, and don't live in fantasy.

[MoonShadow]

There is almost no resource on Mars.  Water ?  Maybe.  Minerals ?  Sure.  But most of the energy we use comes from the Sun (and we don't have to go to Mars to get it) and from fossilized biomass.  Now, here is some news for you :  THERE IS NO BIOMASS ON MARS !   It is nothing else than a huge desertic place.  Show me you can fertilize the Sahara, and then I might you seriously when you talk about going to Mars.

We actually know how to do this, it's just that it would take more resources than it could produce in return; a net loss, particularly when compared to other inhabited areas of the planet.  A series of space mirrors in a polar orbit would be a much easier means of opening up productive agricultural land.  That said, food isn't the main reason that humanity would consider permanent occupation of Mars or the Moon, and neither is living space.  H3 would be a major Moon export for example, and if the Sahara (or the South pole) had an economicly viable volume of H3 to be collected, there would already be a permanent settlement there.  In the case of H3, any atmosphere is counterproductive.

[grondilu]

We actually know how to do this, it's just that it would take more resources than it could produce in return; a net loss, particularly when compared to other inhabited areas of the planet.  A series of space mirrors in a polar orbit would be a much easier means of opening up productive agricultural land.  That said, food isn't the main reason that humanity would consider permanent occupation of Mars or the Moon, and neither is living space.  H3 would be a major Moon export for example, and if the Sahara (or the South pole) had an economicly viable volume of H3 to be collected, there would already be a permanent settlement there.  In the case of H3, any atmosphere is counterproductive.

I also very much doubt we need energetic resources that bad.  I mean, it's true that we are currently facing environmental and energetic difficulties, mainly due to our recent dramatic demographic increase.

But this is only temporary.  Most countries have already entered demographic transition phase, so that we can very much predict that there will be a drastic decrease in human population, not even due to wars, social unstability or whatever, but only because of the decrease of natality due to contraception and rise of feminine condition.  Some people even think it could lead to human extinction.  Anyway, this will cause major social problematic situations, and will require a full refundation of societies, but it will also make the need of resources a problem from the past.

[genjix]

It would be a massive accomplishment to have a human settlement on Mars. The boon to science and living standards would be incredible from the challenges that need to be solved. Suddenly we'd be abundant in rare resources- everyone on Earth would be rich from Mars-Earth trade. It's the new frontier of exploration.

And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.

I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.

[grondilu]

It would be a massive accomplishment to have a human settlement on Mars. The boon to science and living standards would be incredible from the challenges that need to be solved. Suddenly we'd be abundant in rare resources- everyone on Earth would be rich from Mars-Earth trade. It's the new frontier of exploration.

And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.

I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.

Oh my god.  You are hopelessly brain-washed.

My initial post is not against science or technological progress.  Please read it again.

[kiba]

It would be a massive accomplishment to have a human settlement on Mars. The boon to science and living standards would be incredible from the challenges that need to be solved. Suddenly we'd be abundant in rare resources- everyone on Earth would be rich from Mars-Earth trade. It's the new frontier of exploration.

And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.

I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.

This is an exercise in the Broken Window Fallacy. Basically, you're assuming that something won't develop if DARPA did not fund the internet. Something else entirely could have develop -or- something similar to the internet.

Let us note that we cannot predict technological trajectory of an alternative universe.

[MoonShadow]

But this is only temporary.  Most countries have already entered demographic transition phase, so that we can very much predict that there will be a drastic decrease in human population, not even due to wars, social unstability or whatever, but only because of the decrease of natality due to contraception and rise of feminine condition.  Some people even think it could lead to human extinction.  Anyway, this will cause major social problematic situations, and will require a full refundation of societies, but it will also make the need of resources a problem from the past.

Some people think a lot of things about the future, but if history is of any value it tells us that those who make distant predictions have a terrible track record.  I'll stick with the long term trendline in my own assumptions, which is decidedly more people with longer lifespans.

[grondilu]

This is an exercise in the Broken Window Fallacy. Basically, you're assuming that something won't develop if DARPA did not fund the internet. Something else entirely could have develop -or- something similar to the internet.

+1

We might also take bitcoin as an example.  Satoshi's white paper is the smartest document I had read in years.  And yet, correct me if I am wrong, but Satoshi is not a State employee, nor is bitcoin any part of a government project.

[MoonShadow]

A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.

Let's be clear about one thing, no one person should get to decide what is "worth it" for the rest.  It matters not how worthy the cause, not even if the very survival of the entire human species depends upon it with an absolute certainty.  If you are advocating for the taxation of others to fund your ideal project, you are advocating for the legalized theft of the rightful property of others.  Whatever it is, if it is truly worthwhile, someone will fund it voluntarily.  The day that an H3 fusion reactor breaks the parity barrier, the funding for a permanent settlement on the Moon will appear; with or without the aid of any government.  There are hundreds of tabletop reactors, with hundreds of experimental engineers, trying to find the key to making that leap.  If it can be done, it will be done within my lifetime; and another moonshot will come in short order.

[grondilu]

Some people think a lot of things about the future, but if history is of any value it tells us that those who make distant predictions have a terrible track record.  I'll stick with the long term trendline in my own assumptions, which is decidedly more people with longer lifespans.

Longer lifespans doesn't do much for human reproduction.  Whether a woman lives 60 or 110 years, she will have the same amount of babies, and this will probably be below replacement rate.  If you like to folow long term trendline, don't look at total population number, but look at this rate.  In every countries, natality is sliding below replacement rate.  Longer lifespans only hides this phenomenum, giving the impression of a growing population.   But it's not growing :  it's aging.  And after getting old, all these people will just die, leaving behind them a dramaticly smaller number of people.  And don't think it would be good news, you would be very wrong, imo.

[MoonShadow]

This is an exercise in the Broken Window Fallacy. Basically, you're assuming that something won't develop if DARPA did not fund the internet. Something else entirely could have develop -or- something similar to the internet.

+1

We might also take bitcoin as an example.  Satoshi's white paper is the smartest document I had read in years.  And yet, correct me if I am wrong, but Satoshi is not a State employee, nor is bitcoin any part of a government project.

Actually, we don't know that, we can only assume.  Satoshi is a very private character.  We don't even know if his name is real.  For all we know, he could be another teen genius in the vein of "DVD Jon"; wisely prohibited from too much online interaction by his 'rents.  Actually, now that I think about it, he never was one to post on the forum often; but he does seem to have dropped off even from that level since the school year has started.

Hmmm....

[grondilu]

Let's be clear about one thing, no one person should get to decide what is "worth it" for the rest.  It matters not how worthy the cause, not even if the very survival of the entire human species depends upon it with an absolute certainty.  If you are advocating for the taxation of others to fund your ideal project, you are advocating for the legalized theft of the rightful property of others.  Whatever it is, if it is truly worthwhile, someone will fund it voluntarily.

+1, creighto.

Couldn't say it better.

[kiba]

Some people think a lot of things about the future, but if history is of any value it tells us that those who make distant predictions have a terrible track record.  I'll stick with the long term trendline in my own assumptions, which is decidedly more people with longer lifespans.

 But it's not growing :  it's aging.  And after getting old, all these people will just die, leaving behind them a dramaticly smaller number of people.  And don't think it would be good news, you would be very wrong, imo.

Eliminating aging would rank on par with human colonization, perhaps even more important than human colonization. At least, that's my opinion. I would be happy to donate a small sum of my money into anti-aging research every month, with bitcoins.

[MoonShadow]

Some people think a lot of things about the future, but if history is of any value it tells us that those who make distant predictions have a terrible track record.  I'll stick with the long term trendline in my own assumptions, which is decidedly more people with longer lifespans.

Longer lifespans doesn't do much for human reproduction.  Whether a woman lives 60 or 110 years, she will have the same amount of babies, and this will probably be below replacement rate.  If you like to folow long term trendline, don't look at total population number, but look at this rate.  In every countries, natality is sliding below replacement rate.  Longer lifespans only hides this phenomenum, giving the impression of a growing population.   But it's not growing :  it's aging.  And after getting old, all these people will just die, leaving behind them a dramaticly smaller number of people.  And don't think it would be good news, you would be very wrong, imo.

Not in all countries, that is mostly true in Western European nations.  That said, even that much is statistical noise in the trendline of human history.  There have been more dramatic setbacks to that trendline than the relatively recent reproductive habits of a couple of generations of wealthy and self-absorbed white people.

[kiba]

Not in all countries, that is mostly true in Western European nations.  That said, even that much is statistical noise in the trendline of human history.  There have been more dramatic setbacks to that trendline than the relatively recent reproductive habits of a couple of generations of wealthy and self-absorbed white people.

When the future belongs to old people, you're not going to care much about breeding. I expect some kind of chaos and instability within a couple of decades in these countries.

[grondilu]

Not in all countries, that is mostly true in Western European nations.  That said, even that much is statistical noise in the trendline of human history.  There have been more dramatic setbacks to that trendline than the relatively recent reproductive habits of a couple of generations of wealthy and self-absorbed white people.

I thought that too, until I read a book from some french demographs "Essai de prospective démographique".  Main author is Pierre Chaunu.  According to their studies, even if indeed it's in western countries that the phenomenun is the more acute, developping countries do also follow this line, in an alarming rate.  Many of them have already a natality rate below replacement rate.  And yet, their population is growing rapidly, which gives a false impression of a vivid population, while it is only aging.  Contraception may be a recent invention in human history, but it is of a huge importance, probably very much underestimated, imo.

I think that "Demographic winter" is a serious hypothesis that should not be ignored.

[MoonShadow]

Not in all countries, that is mostly true in Western European nations.  That said, even that much is statistical noise in the trendline of human history.  There have been more dramatic setbacks to that trendline than the relatively recent reproductive habits of a couple of generations of wealthy and self-absorbed white people.

When the future belongs to old people, you're not going to care much about breeding. I expect some kind of chaos and instability within a couple of decades in these countries.

We can already see that happening.  It was working age population demands that prompted these very same European nations to open up their immigration laws under the, now provably false, assumption that immigrants from a distinctly different racial, religious and cultural background would be willing to assimilate into the host culture.