Is it time for us to start working on leaving the planet?

[ryan]

You may be overestimating TFT. It's a shadow of its former self, and not really geared towards anything productive, IMO. Again, I recommend LessWrong, if you're not there already. Similarly intelligent/rational userbase, but with priorities similar to yours.

What is TFT?

Okay, so do you think they should stay and battle it out like what is happening now?

That's not what I mean. For one thing, it makes no sense to me for progressives to be the ones colonizing space. Progressives aren't defeatists or separatists, they're reformers. So in that light, this plan of yours actually makes less sense than your immortality schemes. Sure, space exploration is feasible, but "let's admit defeat, cut our losses, and abandon the rest of humanity" is not. Also, progressives don't have the power to colonize space. To get off the ground, something as resource-intensive as space colonization must be compatible with the interests of the corporations and governments and other players in the geopolitical conflict game. You can't pitch it as "opt out of the game". It has to be a continuation of the game, like the Space Race was.

The problem here is that everyone jumps to the future like this would all happen overnight and the ship will be leaving by morning. It will be an incredibly slow and complicated project.

I am thinking that the first 100,000 people will live in space in about a 100 years. But I think it is time to start planning it all now.

I agree with those who say that the problem you're aiming at is a mere symptom of human nature, and transplanting a particular group of humans from a particular battle to a place where the fighting hasn't started yet is just procrastination, not a solution.

So what if we didn't aim for space and the world does self-destruct because of religious and geopolitical problems that couldn't be resolved. They haven't been resolved in at least the last 2000 years, and it doesn't look like they will anytime soon. The only difference is the next world war will be nuclear, chemical and god knows what else.

You seem preoccupied with utopian futures that may never come. Hopefully, you're not pinning all of your hopes upon the idea that one of these schemes will pan out. Living a lie can be very rewarding, but false hope can be devastating to lose in the absence of a safety net.

I believe in this so much that I am happy to try. If tomorrow I am given 6 months to live, I wouldn't regret this because I think it is so important that I would know that there was no other choice. And on my deathbed I can see myself at least feeling good that I tried and hopefully influenced humanity in what I think is a good direction. It is a win-win situation.

"Battle it out" is going to happen sooner or later no matter where people go.

not if everyone leaves

We all carry the seed of geopolitical conflict within us. You would have it proliferate throughout the universe. If I was to suggest some sort of big project, it would be more study into the brain, and genes, and social science.

Those things will help structure the societies in space. I agree; those things are important too, and they are being worked on. But an extension of Earth is not.

Expense is slowly becoming meaningless as automation becomes more advanced. We can build things cheaper than ever before, and this acceleration of cost effectiveness does not seem to be slowing down.

Yes, we can build things that build other things. So what? It's still cheaper to build things and use them here than it is to build things and send them to another planet, or go to another planet and mine the materials necessary to build things there. And that's not even getting into the sunk costs. How are you going to deal with the psychological resistance to abandoning current investments in the status quo?

I don't know what you mean here.

 

[bilby]

So don't worry about space - start working on moving to Vancouver. Surely this is easier, cheaper and less controversial than establishing a colony in space? You don't even need anyone else to help you out by developing new technologies - our existing technology will get you to Vancouver from pretty much anywhere in the world in a few days. If you are anywhere in the Americas, you can walk there in less than five years, without having to spend all day every day on the road.

Okay, but then how does that help the rest of the world? I will still be paying taxes for conflicts that I don't believe in. I will still be voting for parties that perpetuate the world's problems. I have to worry when ISIS, or the next thing, inevitably decides to terrorise it.

We can't live in harmony when everything is so interconnected. Designing something that will work better is what we should start doing. The world will hear about the harmony in space, and they will follow suit.

Why is it your job to help the rest of the world?

The world heard about the harmony at Woodstock, and completely failed to follow suit. Why would things be different if Woodstock was in space?

 

[ryan]

Okay, but then how does that help the rest of the world? I will still be paying taxes for conflicts that I don't believe in. I will still be voting for parties that perpetuate the world's problems. I have to worry when ISIS, or the next thing, inevitably decides to terrorise it.

We can't live in harmony when everything is so interconnected. Designing something that will work better is what we should start doing. The world will hear about the harmony in space, and they will follow suit.

Why is it your job to help the rest of the world?

I love people, and I have hope that they can be much happier, just a manifestation of evolutionary instincts I guess.

The world heard about the harmony at Woodstock, and completely failed to follow suit. Why would things be different if Woodstock was in space?

What the ...

It was temporary.

 

[bilby]

Why is it your job to help the rest of the world?

I love people, and I have hope that they can be much happier, just a manifestation of evolutionary instincts I guess.

The world heard about the harmony at Woodstock, and completely failed to follow suit. Why would things be different if Woodstock was in space?

What the ...

It was temporary.

Exactly. That's my point.

 

[ryan]

I love people, and I have hope that they can be much happier, just a manifestation of evolutionary instincts I guess.

The world heard about the harmony at Woodstock, and completely failed to follow suit. Why would things be different if Woodstock was in space?

What the ...

It was temporary.

Exactly. That's my point.

So should we deny working towards a better future because we know that it might end? What if we work towards maximizing the length of good living? Is there some law for the conservation of comfortable living.

After all, we are pretty good problem solvers. We are gaining more and more control over ourselves biologically and the environment.

We can choose to work towards making things better, or we can choose not to.

Sadly, I think that there is a whole other side that thinks like me, and this side will probably split away from your side that feels too pessimistic and defeated to do anything to make things better. You have to make the decision as to which side you want to be on.

It's probably what will speciate us apart. Your species will just be no more, and like other species it will be because it wasn't in your nature to progress.

 

[Unbeatable]

What is TFT?

An abbreviation for talkfreethought, the name of this website.

Okay, so do you think they should stay and battle it out like what is happening now?

The problem here is that everyone jumps to the future like this would all happen overnight and the ship will be leaving by morning.

The problem is you don't have a well-defined idea of what you're trying to achieve, so people are left to infer one from your posts.

I agree with those who say that the problem you're aiming at is a mere symptom of human nature, and transplanting a particular group of humans from a particular battle to a place where the fighting hasn't started yet is just procrastination, not a solution.

So what if we didn't aim for space and the world does self-destruct because of religious and geopolitical problems that couldn't be resolved.

Humanity's extinction resolves the problems.

I believe in this so much that I am happy to try. If tomorrow I am given 6 months to live, I wouldn't regret this because I think it is so important that I would know that there was no other choice. And on my deathbed I can see myself at least feeling good that I tried and hopefully influenced humanity in what I think is a good direction. It is a win-win situation.

Okay. So for you, this is a meaningful purpose, living and dying for an "important" cause. For you, this is yet another scheme to postpone the extinction of the human race in general. That wasn't clear in the beginning. It looked like you wanted to save a particular group of people from everybody else; hence Keith's posts about genocide.

"Battle it out" is going to happen sooner or later no matter where people go.

not if everyone leaves

If everyone leaves, the battles on Earth end. Then new battles begin sooner or later everywhere in the universe that humans colonize. And the further humanity spreads, the harder it gets to cure human nature.

We all carry the seed of geopolitical conflict within us. You would have it proliferate throughout the universe. If I was to suggest some sort of big project, it would be more study into the brain, and genes, and social science.

Those things will help structure the societies in space. I agree; those things are important too, and they are being worked on. But an extension of Earth is not.

It's this sort of talk that makes it seem like you want a spaceship to take off overnight. How can you say it's not being worked on? We have a space program, don't we? We send probes into space and collect data on things like the potential for other planets to support life. We're developing alternate energy sources, right? I'd say we are in the research phase. We can't just send people up without knowing anything about where we're sending them, or having reliable sources of power and building materials. There are likely still tons of unknown unknowns. What exactly would it take for you to think that we are working on it? Do we need to start designing the space ships and picking out destinations right now?

Expense is slowly becoming meaningless as automation becomes more advanced. We can build things cheaper than ever before, and this acceleration of cost effectiveness does not seem to be slowing down.

Yes, we can build things that build other things. So what? It's still cheaper to build things and use them here than it is to build things and send them to another planet, or go to another planet and mine the materials necessary to build things there. And that's not even getting into the sunk costs. How are you going to deal with the psychological resistance to abandoning current investments in the status quo?

I don't know what you mean here.

Sunk costs

psychological resistance to abandoning current investments in the status quo

 

[bilby]

I love people, and I have hope that they can be much happier, just a manifestation of evolutionary instincts I guess.

The world heard about the harmony at Woodstock, and completely failed to follow suit. Why would things be different if Woodstock was in space?

What the ...

It was temporary.

Exactly. That's my point.

So should we deny working towards a better future because we know that it might end? What if we work towards maximizing the length of good living?

No, 'So you are wrong to assert that "The world will hear about the harmony in space, and they will follow suit"'. When your ideas are based on such demonstrably flawed premises, you can expect them to be greeted with derision.

Changing the subject in this way, and responding to the disproof of your premise by destroying a strawman, rather than either addressing or conceding the point, simply shows that you haven't thought this through, and that you are more interested in feeling like you have 'won' the argument than you are in discussing things rationally. (I wasn't suggesting that we should deny working towards a better future, just that your future isn't actually better except in your imaginary world where people hear about harmony and take that as a lead; And I wasn't making the argument that things are not worth doing just because they might end, so that's two strawmen for the price of one right there).

Is there some law for the conservation of comfortable living.

No, of course not. But that fact doesn't make your scheme to create a better society by the simplistic mechanism of moving selected people to an inhospitable environment any less awful.

After all, we are pretty good problem solvers. We are gaining more and more control over ourselves biologically and the environment.

Indeed we are. We can even go into space - and may have some good reasons to do so at various times; Building a better society is a prerequisite for this stuff though, not a consequence of it.

We can choose to work towards making things better, or we can choose not to.

And by coming up with hare-brained schemes with no chance of success, and then refusing to debate their flaws honestly, or with an open mind, which are you choosing?

Sadly, I think that there is a whole other side that thinks like me, and this side will probably split away from your side that feels too pessimistic and defeated to do anything to make things better. You have to make the decision as to which side you want to be on.

Ah, tribalism. That's going to be just what you need to generate all that harmony. We are the good guys; We want harmony; and we will slaughter anyone who stands in our way!!

It's probably what will speciate us apart. Your species will just be no more, and like other species it will be because it wasn't in your nature to progress.

Seriously? Argument by smug feeling of unwarranted superiority is not going to get you closer to world harmony. Not even if the world you try for harmony on isn't Earth.

 

[Bronzeage]

[.

This brings back Tonto's question, which you have yet to address. Why should we, the people left behind, support your space resort camp, since you have abandoned us to our fate, in favor of your space sanctuary.

It's business. A country or company may be willing to sell their resources to help build and maintain the colony.

Why? What is the business model? What does "sell their resources," mean? Does this mean a country will sell their resources to another country in order to send stuff to space? If this is a business, how do you intend to show a return on the investment?

 

[NobleSavage]

As long as you do it with your money -- sure.

 

[ryan]

So what if we didn't aim for space and the world does self-destruct because of religious and geopolitical problems that couldn't be resolved.

Humanity's extinction resolves the problems.

I think you're forgetting a major detail which is that we want to live too.

"Battle it out" is going to happen sooner or later no matter where people go.

not if everyone leaves

If everyone leaves, the battles on Earth end. Then new battles begin sooner or later everywhere in the universe that humans colonize. And the further humanity spreads, the harder it gets to cure human nature.

Then you don't knowhow we got to this point. You need to know how our societies evolved over the last 500 years. We will continue this evolution by being more conscious of what we are doing in space, and we will try to anticipate any conflicts that may emerge.

Learn year by year since the 1400's, and you will know that this peace we experience now in Europe and North America is no accident.

Those things will help structure the societies in space. I agree; those things are important too, and they are being worked on. But an extension of Earth is not.

It's this sort of talk that makes it seem like you want a spaceship to take off overnight. How can you say it's not being worked on? We have a space program, don't we? We send probes into space and collect data on things like the potential for other planets to support life. We're developing alternate energy sources, right? I'd say we are in the research phase. We can't just send people up without knowing anything about where we're sending them, or having reliable sources of power and building materials. There are likely still tons of unknown unknowns. What exactly would it take for you to think that we are working on it? Do we need to start designing the space ships and picking out destinations right now?

Well for starters, it would be nice if the major space programs of the world would put more time towards this than Mars. I don't know why we need to explore Mars, and I have never heard a good reason to explore Mars. It just seems like space interests are on idle and Mars is the best out of a bunch of other useless options.

I don't know what you mean here.

Sunk costs

psychological resistance to abandoning current investments in the status quo

You still seem to think that I expect everyone to drop everything and start towards this project tomorrow. It will be so gradual that it shouldn't cause anyone to like they abandoned their investments.

 

[ryan]

Sadly, I think that there is a whole other side that thinks like me, and this side will probably split away from your side that feels too pessimistic and defeated to do anything to make things better. You have to make the decision as to which side you want to be on.

Ah, tribalism. That's going to be just what you need to generate all that harmony. We are the good guys; We want harmony; and we will slaughter anyone who stands in our way!!

We are just too far apart on this, so I will save both of us the time.

 

[ryan]

[.



It's business. A country or company may be willing to sell their resources to help build and maintain the colony.

Why? What is the business model? What does "sell their resources," mean?

For example, Canada/corporations sells oil, lumber, fish, etc.

If this is a business, how do you intend to show a return on the investment?

I said "it's business". But I do expect there to be a lot of interest because of some of the industries that exist today and new industries that this will create.

 

[Kharakov]

This is not the gamma ray burst you are lurking for.

 

[ryan]

Ah, someone has made a video of what's in my head, http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-most-...ision-of-our-future-ive-1664783812/+jesusdiaz

There you have it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We can choose to work towards making things better, or we can choose not to.

Sadly, I think that there is a whole other side that thinks like me, and this side will probably split away from your side that feels too pessimistic and defeated to do anything to make things better. You have to make the decision as to which side you want to be on.

It's probably what will speciate us apart. Your species will just be no more, and like other species it will be because it wasn't in your nature to progress.

I guess it's just not possible to find faults in a plan.
You have to either embrace it completely or reject it completely. And that must be the only two options of any mind-set.

one can't say it's workable except for the things you forgot unless one's really saying 'let's not try anything at all' and just sit in our own fecal matter until we drown.

One can't point out that 100% recyclable isn't possible because it is, it really is, and if it isn't possible, at least we already know that the loss is far, far below negligible and will have zero effect no matter how long-term the situation applies.

One can't point out more pressing problems or less expensive areas to improve humanity's lot wihtout being, in reality, nothing but a naysaying nabob whose only contribution is to poison his own kitchen. Or something.

Ryan's ideas are perfect, though he's open to improvement, except that there's no need for improvement, so pointing out problems is some sort of propaganda for failure from people who have to face up to the dichotomy of ryan's way or extinction.

 

[ryan]

We can choose to work towards making things better, or we can choose not to.

Sadly, I think that there is a whole other side that thinks like me, and this side will probably split away from your side that feels too pessimistic and defeated to do anything to make things better. You have to make the decision as to which side you want to be on.

It's probably what will speciate us apart. Your species will just be no more, and like other species it will be because it wasn't in your nature to progress.

I guess it's just not possible to find faults in a plan.
You have to either embrace it completely or reject it completely. And that must be the only two options of any mind-set.

one can't say it's workable except for the things you forgot unless one's really saying 'let's not try anything at all' and just sit in our own fecal matter until we drown.

One can't point out that 100% recyclable isn't possible because it is, it really is, and if it isn't possible, at least we already know that the loss is far, far below negligible and will have zero effect no matter how long-term the situation applies.

One can't point out more pressing problems or less expensive areas to improve humanity's lot wihtout being, in reality, nothing but a naysaying nabob whose only contribution is to poison his own kitchen. Or something.

Ryan's ideas are perfect, though he's open to improvement, except that there's no need for improvement, so pointing out problems is some sort of propaganda for failure from people who have to face up to the dichotomy of ryan's way or extinction.

No I took some of the criticism to be constructive, and I wouldn't argue unless I believed in my counter argument.

And, yes, I know we would lose a very small fraction to entropy.

 

[Bronzeage]

No I took some of the criticism to be constructive, and I wouldn't argue unless I believed in my counter argument.

And, yes, I know we would lose a very small fraction to entropy.

The weakness of your argument is that you spend too much time explaining that it is possible and not enough time constructing an argument of why you want us to do this. Your doomsday message is simply not convincing.

Assume your bleak outlook of the future is correct. Why should the people who will be left behind to deal with the mess contribute their hard earned cash to finance your escape plan?

The minimum amount of money and resources for a reasonable and safe birth control program in developing countries could reduce the threat of overpopulation for a fraction the cost of your space program. Any other Earthly problem which you wish to escape has much the same mathematical leverage. Your lifeboat scenario simply does not work.

 

[ryan]

No I took some of the criticism to be constructive, and I wouldn't argue unless I believed in my counter argument.

And, yes, I know we would lose a very small fraction to entropy.

The weakness of your argument is that you spend too much time explaining that it is possible and not enough time constructing an argument of why you want us to do this. Your doomsday message is simply not convincing.

Assume your bleak outlook of the future is correct. Why should the people who will be left behind to deal with the mess contribute their hard earned cash to finance your escape plan?

There are people on Earth who would get paid; they wouldn't pay. It would be a non-profit organization, not a charity.

But you are paying for space programs that you may not totally agree with anyway.

There will be a lot of people like you who think the whole thing is frivolous. You will naturally be interested though. You will probably root for mankind to insure its future, but you will not necessarily be interested in uprooting your life to join an extremely different environment.

The minimum amount of money and resources for a reasonable and safe birth control program in developing countries could reduce the threat of overpopulation for a fraction the cost of your space program.

Easing the population is just one of the reasons.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are people on Earth who would get paid; they wouldn't pay. It would be a non-profit organization, not a charity.

Um....non-profit does not mean that there won't be costs to build a spaceship. Just that the benefits to the partners is not in the form of profits.
You still have to get money from somewhere to build the spaceship and load the spaceship and train the spaceship crew and advertise to get 'just the right sort' of colonists and security to keep the wrong sort of colonists off the spaceship until it launches.

So either someone has to give you money for the spaceship effort, or you will produce goods/services that people will pay you for.
You still have to have people paying for the spaceship, ryan. And unless you recruit only billionaires, you're going to need other people to pay for it.

But you are paying for space programs that you may not totally agree with anyway.

There's a difference between research platforms with no immediately visible benefit to me and a program that's designed to permanently remove resources from the planet and never return any benefits to me.

 

[Bronzeage]

The weakness of your argument is that you spend too much time explaining that it is possible and not enough time constructing an argument of why you want us to do this. Your doomsday message is simply not convincing.

Assume your bleak outlook of the future is correct. Why should the people who will be left behind to deal with the mess contribute their hard earned cash to finance your escape plan?

There are people on Earth who would get paid; they wouldn't pay. It would be a non-profit organization, not a charity.

But you are paying for space programs that you may not totally agree with anyway.

There will be a lot of people like you who think the whole thing is frivolous. You will naturally be interested though. You will probably root for mankind to insure its future, but you will not necessarily be interested in uprooting your life to join an extremely different environment.

The minimum amount of money and resources for a reasonable and safe birth control program in developing countries could reduce the threat of overpopulation for a fraction the cost of your space program.

Easing the population is just one of the reasons.

You seem to have no grasp of macroeconomics, so arguing this point any further is a waste of time.