Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No Planets.

1 (0.7%)

Dead Planets Only.

11 (7.7%)

Dead Planets and planets that have the potential to support life.

22 (15.5%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, and planets that have microbial life/proto-life.

37 (26.1%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, planets that have microbial life/proto-life, and planets with pre-existing biospheres that lack any sapient species.

43 (30.3%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, planets that have microbial life/proto-life, planets with pre-existing biospheres that lack any sapient species, and planets that are inhabited by other sapient species.

21 (14.8%)

Other.

5 (3.5%)

No Opinion.

2 (1.4%)

Total Members Voted: 142

[Africa]

A related question to the main thread is, once we have the ability to mass-terraform inhospitable areas on earth (deserts and the like) should we? Currently, you can pour a shitload of water onto a lot of deserts and grow crops, but it's so inefficient that nobody does it unless they really have something to prove or are a little nuts or are REALLY strapped for farmland. But I'm talking about somehow massively turning a wasteland into fertile ground.

[Criptfeind]

So how is it more horrible to enforce one or two child limits, prevent overconsumption and overexploitation of resources through taxation or laws, and so on, than to allow billions of people to starve and be killed in the huge wars that WILL result when, for example, oil runs out and no other energy source can replace it, or when water becomes too expensive for most people in the Middle East to afford?

You have given me a false dilemma. You are saying we can enforce all this stuff or die, which may very well be true in real life and then I would support it. But in the context of this thread there is a third choice.

1: You can force people to do these things
2: You can have a die off.
3: You can colonize another world.

When it is only 1 and 2, I would go for 1 every time. But in this thread there is 3, which means what would have been moral before out of sheer necessity is now immoral.

Also, I think we should take as many planets as we can, just like colonize the fuck out of everything. Because you never know if some random thing is going to come out of space and wash the planet of all life, so we should have some backups.

[Eagleon]

Since reading Kim Robinson's Mars series, I've become a bit of a snoot regarding using colonies on different worlds to solve large-scale population problems. Namely, the amount of fuel used to significantly offset a population problem would be astronomical compared to just using it to make a bunch of glass for greenhouses, hydroponics, and arcologies. Even with a decent space elevator and cryogenic storage, the pure mass and volume involved with depleting a multi-billion population is immense.

Say the average human transported is a generous 160 lbs. That means to transport one million people to mars, you have to shift 160,000,000 lbs of mass an absolute minimum 56 million km in a reasonable enough time-frame that you can get your ship back before that million is replaced. Since Mars only comes that close every few decades, you're going to be putting your ships through more than that, unless you can build a ship large enough to move your goal amount all at once. Even if you meet that small margin, and you keep sending people back and forth, you face a rapidly diminishing depletion rate depending on how fast the trip actually is. Meanwhile, you're consuming enormous amounts of fuel and probably devoting a significant portion of your educated population to finding better ways to do this. It doesn't seem sane.

This doesn't take into account magical FTL teleportation devices, but meh I like raining on people's discussions sometimes.

[Haschel]

Since reading Kim Robinson's Mars series, I've become a bit of a snoot regarding using colonies on different worlds to solve large-scale population problems. Namely, the amount of fuel used to significantly offset a population problem would be astronomical compared to just using it to make a bunch of glass for greenhouses, hydroponics, and arcologies. Even with a decent space elevator and cryogenic storage, the pure mass and volume involved with depleting a multi-billion population is immense.

It's a good point, but that's only assuming we're moving a large population (or the entire population) away from an otherwise "dying" scenario. Initiating Terraforming won't necessarily be because of overpopulation/depletion of resources. It could start out as a simple experiment, a business adventure from some rich conglomeration, or just simple human expansion via small colonization. I still don't really see why Terraforming would actually provide something to the human existence at this point, other than pleasing some fools crying that living in space is "too unnatural" and need a planet beneath their feet.

[Bohandas]

Since reading Kim Robinson's Mars series, I've become a bit of a snoot regarding using colonies on different worlds to solve large-scale population problems. Namely, the amount of fuel used to significantly offset a population problem would be astronomical compared to just using it to make a bunch of glass for greenhouses, hydroponics, and arcologies. Even with a decent space elevator and cryogenic storage, the pure mass and volume involved with depleting a multi-billion population is immense.

Say the average human transported is a generous 160 lbs. That means to transport one million people to mars, you have to shift 160,000,000 lbs of mass an absolute minimum 56 million km in a reasonable enough time-frame that you can get your ship back before that million is replaced. Since Mars only comes that close every few decades, you're going to be putting your ships through more than that, unless you can build a ship large enough to move your goal amount all at once. Even if you meet that small margin, and you keep sending people back and forth, you face a rapidly diminishing depletion rate depending on how fast the trip actually is. Meanwhile, you're consuming enormous amounts of fuel and probably devoting a significant portion of your educated population to finding better ways to do this. It doesn't seem sane.

This doesn't take into account magical FTL teleportation devices, but meh I like raining on people's discussions sometimes.

You forget that each new planet opens up new resources. I believe that I read tht according to curret theores of planet formation, it would not be impluasible for some extrasolar planets to be composed mostly of carbon, the primary chemical element in oil, plastic, and diamonds.

[mainiac]

Why would we ever want to terraform a planet when it would just be so much simpler and more economical to make O'Neill cylinders?  Not only is a cheaper, but the real estate would be worth more.  If you can travel between planets then there is no need to, just go to the nearest asteroid belt and load up on building materials.

[PTTG??]

Assuming you can make the unobtanium... That said I love ringworlds.

I actually did the math, and the most ideal ringworld is probably impossible- that is to say, 1G at surface, 24-hour period of rotation. It'd have a diameter greater than the sun's, though smaller than the variation in earth's orbit...

[mainiac]

Why in space would you want a 24 hour rotation?  You aren't going to want direct sunlight anyway and a giant mirror would be cheap to build.  Shrink your ringworld down to a reasonable size and that unobtanium is called steel.

[andrea]

while I'll study the properties of construction materials year, so I don't know much about it yet, something tells me that traditional steel isn't going to be enough.. remember that those are spinning huge things. If they weren't spinning, you might as well use tin foil to build it ( forgetting for a while about space dust/micrometeorites/debris). but making it rotate puts great stress on the structure.

[Africa]

So how is it more horrible to enforce one or two child limits, prevent overconsumption and overexploitation of resources through taxation or laws, and so on, than to allow billions of people to starve and be killed in the huge wars that WILL result when, for example, oil runs out and no other energy source can replace it, or when water becomes too expensive for most people in the Middle East to afford?

You have given me a false dilemma. You are saying we can enforce all this stuff or die, which may very well be true in real life and then I would support it. But in the context of this thread there is a third choice.

1: You can force people to do these things
2: You can have a die off.
3: You can colonize another world.

When it is only 1 and 2, I would go for 1 every time. But in this thread there is 3, which means what would have been moral before out of sheer necessity is now immoral.

Also, I think we should take as many planets as we can, just like colonize the fuck out of everything. Because you never know if some random thing is going to come out of space and wash the planet of all life, so we should have some backups.

It's not a false dilemma; the whole point of what I'm saying is we should be avoiding option 3 at all costs - unless it means going to option 2. But option 1 is by far preferable to both.

[Bohandas]

So how is it more horrible to enforce one or two child limits, prevent overconsumption and overexploitation of resources through taxation or laws, and so on, than to allow billions of people to starve and be killed in the huge wars that WILL result when, for example, oil runs out and no other energy source can replace it, or when water becomes too expensive for most people in the Middle East to afford?

You have given me a false dilemma. You are saying we can enforce all this stuff or die, which may very well be true in real life and then I would support it. But in the context of this thread there is a third choice.

1: You can force people to do these things
2: You can have a die off.
3: You can colonize another world.

When it is only 1 and 2, I would go for 1 every time. But in this thread there is 3, which means what would have been moral before out of sheer necessity is now immoral.

Also, I think we should take as many planets as we can, just like colonize the fuck out of everything. Because you never know if some random thing is going to come out of space and wash the planet of all life, so we should have some backups.

It's not a false dilemma; the whole point of what I'm saying is we should be avoiding option 3 at all costs - unless it means going to option 2. But option 1 is by far preferable to both.

You mean we should be avoiding option 1 at all costs.

[Criptfeind]

It's not a false dilemma; the whole point of what I'm saying is we should be avoiding option 3 at all costs - unless it means going to option 2. But option 1 is by far preferable to both.

The issue here is that you are using the fact that 2 is bad as a reason why 1 if preferable to 3.

You very much set it up as you ether have 1 or 2. Thus why you should pick 1. Thus why 3 is bad. Thus why 1 is the best choice.

Did I make myself clear here? Do you see the disconnect between reality and your last argument?

[mainiac]

while I'll study the properties of construction materials year, so I don't know much about it yet, something tells me that traditional steel isn't going to be enough.. remember that those are spinning huge things. If they weren't spinning, you might as well use tin foil to build it ( forgetting for a while about space dust/micrometeorites/debris). but making it rotate puts great stress on the structure.

This idea was invented in a physics classroom.  Structural steel is strong enough to make an O'Neill cylinder a couple miles across even after accounting for the safety factor and the atmosphere.

[Africa]

The issue here is that you are using the fact that 2 is bad as a reason why 1 if preferable to 3.

You very much set it up as you ether have 1 or 2. Thus why you should pick 1. Thus why 3 is bad. Thus why 1 is the best choice.

Did I make myself clear here? Do you see the disconnect between reality and your last argument?

Huh? No, the fact that 3 is bad is basically the whole point of what I originally posted in this thread. I'm taking that for granted. I have no idea what you're saying in the second line there...what I'm saying is, we should avoid destroying a new planet's ecosystems (i.e., terraforming it) unless it's absolutely necessary. And then, separate from that, I'm saying I refuse to believe it would ever be absolutely necessary to do so.

[andrea]

while I'll study the properties of construction materials year, so I don't know much about it yet, something tells me that traditional steel isn't going to be enough.. remember that those are spinning huge things. If they weren't spinning, you might as well use tin foil to build it ( forgetting for a while about space dust/micrometeorites/debris). but making it rotate puts great stress on the structure.

This idea was invented in a physics classroom.  Structural steel is strong enough to make an O'Neill cylinder a couple miles across even after accounting for the safety factor and the atmosphere.

well, that is good to know. if space habitats don't require exotic materials, then I suppose terraforming would be restricted only to the worlds closest to earth conditions.