Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-cult-of-civilization/
the following:

Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of
our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent
of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their
own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring
hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the
scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important
to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated
unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the
ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis
I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy
Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources
that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to
the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from
ourselves, think again!

Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'
of Humans in the context of evolution).

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal quoted, in part:
> Mount Everest and the
> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
> obviously silly, just like space colonization.

What do you _gain_ by building a habitat on the ocean floor, or
on top of Mount Everest?

He is right that building a habitat in space is more difficult. On
the other hand, once you've put a box around a space with air,
at least you don't have to worry about a hurricane damaging it.

But the problem with his statement isn't about his estimate of the
downside. The problem is that he utterly ignores the *upside*.

Build a habitat on Mars, and suddenly you have access to all the
resources of Mars. That *nobody else owns*. And the biggest
upside is that you're out of the reach of Russian and Chinese
nuclear missiles.

Plus, if a dinosaur-killer size asteroid were to hit the Earth and
wipe out the whole human race there - then *afterwards* some of
the space colonists could return to Earth, which indeed would still
be the best-adapted place for human life, and re-populate it with
their descendants, continuing the human story.

If you ignore what makes space colonization worth the cost - if
you think of it as not any more valuable than a real-estate
development housing the same number of people - *of course*
its absurd, but it's *that way of thinking about it* that is absurd.

You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:bd4038dd-d374-4ca7-b622-af06bda812b0n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal
> quoted, in part:
>> Mount Everest and the
>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see
>> condominiums in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to -
>> because it's obviously silly, just like space colonization.
>
> What do you _gain_ by building a habitat on the ocean floor, or
> on top of Mount Everest?
>
> He is right that building a habitat in space is more difficult.
> On the other hand, once you've put a box around a space with
> air, at least you don't have to worry about a hurricane damaging
> it.
>
> But the problem with his statement isn't about his estimate of
> the downside. The problem is that he utterly ignores the
> *upside*.
>
> Build a habitat on Mars, and suddenly you have access to all the
> resources of Mars. That *nobody else owns*. And the biggest
> upside is that you're out of the reach of Russian and Chinese
> nuclear missiles.
>
> Plus, if a dinosaur-killer size asteroid were to hit the Earth
> and wipe out the whole human race there - then *afterwards* some
> of the space colonists could return to Earth, which indeed would
> still be the best-adapted place for human life, and re-populate
> it with their descendants, continuing the human story.
>
> If you ignore what makes space colonization worth the cost - if
> you think of it as not any more valuable than a real-estate
> development housing the same number of people - *of course*
> its absurd, but it's *that way of thinking about it* that is
> absurd.
>
> You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
> decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.
>
He's also assuming that there will be no technological advancement
that will make it easier, cheaper and safer. And practical. Which
is certainly possible, but I wouldn't bet the rent on it.

People who want to poo-poo daring ideas tend - strongly - to do
that, because if they don't, there's nothing to poo-poo.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'
> of Humans in the context of evolution).

Having followed your link now, I see his problem.

The Universe is a big place. Doesn't that prove that humans aren't
the reason for the Universe?

I would only amend that notion in one specific way: humans, and
*all other thinking beings*, wherever they may live across the
galaxies, are the reason for the Universe. The human race happens
to be the only kind of thinking beings we know of at the present time.

Wolves, like spiders or microbes, are part of nature; they live by it and
die by it. Humans have been able, through forethought, to take charge
of their own destiny - to a _limited_ extent, so far.

We matter. We matter to each other, and we're the only beings around to
whom anything _can_ matter. Civilization is what has let us develop
written language, and amass technological power, which has let us make
our lives more comfortable.

The work hasn't been finished, yet. We still have some people going
hungry. We still have some people suffering war and the threat of war.
We still are doomed to die of old age, if nothing else.

Technology has made wars more deadly. But without it, we wouldn't
have been able to develop contraceptives - without which, only death
could limit population to the available resources - or to improve
medical science.

War is a *contingent* fact; a consequence of there being soverign states
and terrorist groups hostile to the United States of America and the other
wealthy industrialized nations. There is no law of nature saying that has
to be the case always. So it can be fixed, even if we're not quite sure how
to achieve it in the short run.

John Savard

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:24:49 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-cult-of-civilization/
> the following:
>
> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of
> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent
> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their
> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring
> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the
> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important
> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated
> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the
> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis
> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy
> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources
> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to
> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from
> ourselves, think again!
>
> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'
> of Humans in the context of evolution).
My first reaction is that criticising an idea because somebody believes in it without sufficient justification is a fallacy - pick through mathematics homework and you find any number of broken proofs of true theorems.

My second reaction is that our current assessments of the practicality of space colonization in the long term are probably irrelevant. We have the responsibility to know the consequences of our actions, and of our inactions, and to behave as best we can. This means that we need to amass as much scientific and technological knowledge as possible, so as to know what we could do and the effects of what we actually do. One of the options is the colonisation of space, and when we know more we can decide whether this is practical or not. I do not see any problem with people being motiviated by its possibility to do and fund the learning that would make it possible or show that it is not practical.

Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> writes:
>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:24:49 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-c=
>ult-of-civilization/=20
>> the following:=20
>>=20
>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of=20
>> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent=20
>> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their=20
>> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring=20
>> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the=20
>> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important=20
>> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated=20
>> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the=20
>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any=20
>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to=20
>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums=20
>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's=20
>> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis=20
>> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy=20
>> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources=20
>> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to=20
>> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from=20
>> ourselves, think again!=20
>>=20
>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'=20
>> of Humans in the context of evolution).
>My first reaction is that criticising an idea because somebody believes in =
>it without sufficient justification is a fallacy - pick through mathematics=
> homework and you find any number of broken proofs of true theorems.

Just as a note, the author of that article bounces lasers off the moon to measure
it's orbit as his primary day job. I think he understands (and teaches)
physics and mathematics rather well.

Exponential growth cannot end well, and the idea that we can move any
substantial numbers of humans off the planet before the resource
train dries up is fantasy. What is the EROEI/EROI of raw materials
retrieved from an asteroid? Or from Mars?

On 10/21/2022 11:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> writes:
>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:24:49 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-c=
>> ult-of-civilization/=20
>>> the following:=20
>>> =20
>>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of=20
>>> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent=20
>>> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their=20
>>> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring=20
>>> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the=20
>>> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important=20
>>> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated=20
>>> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the=20
>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any=20
>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to=20
>>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums=20
>>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's=20
>>> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis=20
>>> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy=20
>>> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources=20
>>> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to=20
>>> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from=20
>>> ourselves, think again!=20
>>> =20
>>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'=20
>>> of Humans in the context of evolution).
>> My first reaction is that criticising an idea because somebody believes in =
>> it without sufficient justification is a fallacy - pick through mathematics=
>> homework and you find any number of broken proofs of true theorems.
>
> Just as a note, the author of that article bounces lasers off the moon to measure
> it's orbit as his primary day job. I think he understands (and teaches)
> physics and mathematics rather well.
>
> Exponential growth cannot end well, and the idea that we can move any
> substantial numbers of humans off the planet before the resource
> train dries up is fantasy. What is the EROEI/EROI of raw materials
> retrieved from an asteroid? Or from Mars?
>
But that is not the same as saying any colonization off planet at all is
a fantasy.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/21/2022 1:17 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal quoted, in part:
>> Mount Everest and the
>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
>> obviously silly, just like space colonization.
>
> What do you _gain_ by building a habitat on the ocean floor, or
> on top of Mount Everest?
>
> He is right that building a habitat in space is more difficult. On
> the other hand, once you've put a box around a space with air,
> at least you don't have to worry about a hurricane damaging it.
>
> But the problem with his statement isn't about his estimate of the
> downside. The problem is that he utterly ignores the *upside*.
>
> Build a habitat on Mars, and suddenly you have access to all the
> resources of Mars. That *nobody else owns*. And the biggest
> upside is that you're out of the reach of Russian and Chinese
> nuclear missiles.
>
> Plus, if a dinosaur-killer size asteroid were to hit the Earth and
> wipe out the whole human race there - then *afterwards* some of
> the space colonists could return to Earth, which indeed would still
> be the best-adapted place for human life, and re-populate it with
> their descendants, continuing the human story.
>
> If you ignore what makes space colonization worth the cost - if
> you think of it as not any more valuable than a real-estate
> development housing the same number of people - *of course*
> its absurd, but it's *that way of thinking about it* that is absurd.
>
> You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
> decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.
>
> John Savard

No you don't. Many people will go do something just because it is there.

Lynn

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:56:10 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> writes:
>>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:24:49 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in
>>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-c=
>>ult-of-civilization/=20
>>> the following:=20
>>>=20
>>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of=20 our
>>> future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent=20 of the
>>> Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their=20 own
>>> planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring=20 hope,
>>> ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the=20 scale,
>>> energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important=20 to
>>> sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated=20
>>> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the=20
>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any=20
>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to=20 access
>>> and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums=20 in those
>>> locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's=20 obviously
>>> silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis=20 I
>>> participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy=20
>>> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of
>>> resources=20 that leaving the planet would require. So if you are
>>> attracted to=20 the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to
>>> save it from=20 ourselves, think again!=20
>>>=20
>>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the
>>> 'exceptionism'=20 of Humans in the context of evolution).
>>My first reaction is that criticising an idea because somebody believes
>>in =
>>it without sufficient justification is a fallacy - pick through
>>mathematics=
>> homework and you find any number of broken proofs of true theorems.
>
> Just as a note, the author of that article bounces lasers off the moon
> to measure it's orbit as his primary day job. I think he understands
> (and teaches)
> physics and mathematics rather well.
>
> Exponential growth cannot end well, and the idea that we can move any
> substantial numbers of humans off the planet before the resource train
> dries up is fantasy. What is the EROEI/EROI of raw materials retrieved
> from an asteroid? Or from Mars?

If you assume static technology at any given time you too can ridicule
any though of advancement.

Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> writes:
>On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:56:10 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> writes:
>>>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:24:49 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in

>>>> <https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-cult-of-civilization/>

>>>> the following:=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of=20 our
>>>> future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent=20 of the
>>>> Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their=20 own
>>>> planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring=20 hope,
>>>> ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the=20 scale,
>>>> energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important=20 to
>>>> sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated=20
>>>> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the=20
>>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any=20
>>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to=20 access
>>>> and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums=20 in those
>>>> locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's=20 obviously
>>>> silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis=20 I
>>>> participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy=20
>>>> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of
>>>> resources=20 that leaving the planet would require. So if you are
>>>> attracted to=20 the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to
>>>> save it from=20 ourselves, think again!=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the
>>>> 'exceptionism'=20 of Humans in the context of evolution).
>>>My first reaction is that criticising an idea because somebody believes
>>>in =
>>>it without sufficient justification is a fallacy - pick through
>>>mathematics=
>>> homework and you find any number of broken proofs of true theorems.
>>
>> Just as a note, the author of that article bounces lasers off the moon
>> to measure it's orbit as his primary day job. I think he understands
>> (and teaches)
>> physics and mathematics rather well.
>>
>> Exponential growth cannot end well, and the idea that we can move any
>> substantial numbers of humans off the planet before the resource train
>> dries up is fantasy. What is the EROEI/EROI of raw materials retrieved
>> from an asteroid? Or from Mars?
>
>If you assume static technology at any given time you too can ridicule
>any though of advancement.

Nobody, including the author of the above, assumes static technology.

Did you bother to follow the link before commenting?

On Friday, 21 October 2022 at 18:24:49 UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-cult-of-civilization/
> the following:
>
> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of
> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent
> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their
> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring
> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the
> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important
> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated
> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the
> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis
> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy
> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources
> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to
> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from
> ourselves, think again!
>
> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'
> of Humans in the context of evolution).

This is part of his longer argument that we need
a way to /not/ break /this/ planet, which we currently
are doing, because we won't get another one.
In that respect I think he makes a reasonable
assessment of foreseeable technological progress.
He's pessimistic about that otherwise, too, that it's
slowing down? Still... I'd agree that we should not
include salvation by new technology in our planning
for survival as a society on a planet of finite resources.

If science fiction makes interplanetary or interstellar
space travel easy, to the point of mass migration of
humans, it's certainly using technology that doesn't
exist and is doubtful ever to exist, whether it's
atomic energy rockets, warp drive, wormholes,
unconvincingly justified, or not explained at all.
Many of our favourite stories can't happen without it,
so we don't object.

Space exploitation is a different matter, if we can
!use the space environment and stuff that's in it,
but going there ourselves to live is less likely.
Of course, until Isaac Asimov invented robots,
industry in space /had/ to use people, instead.
For instance, when Arthur C. Clarke invented
satellite broadcasting, he proposed space stations
with crew on board "relieved and provisioned by
a regular rocket service". And it was going to be
atomic energy rockets, too.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:MRD4L.789453$BKL8.256445@fx15.iad:

> Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> writes:
>>On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:56:10 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> writes:
>>>>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:24:49 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in
>
>>>>> <https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-cult-of-civilization/
>>>>> >
>
>>>>> the following:=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part
>>>>> of=20 our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me
>>>>> reminiscent=20 of the Mormon idea that the especially devout
>>>>> would inherit their=20 own planet in the afterlife. If you
>>>>> subscribe to the space-faring=20 hope, ask yourself how
>>>>> deeply you understand the challenges: the=20 scale,
>>>>> energetic requirements, the paucity of resources
>>>>> important=20 to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility
>>>>> and isolated=20 unsurvivability of non-earth environments.
>>>>> Mount Everest and the=20 ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude
>>>>> more habitable than any=20 non-terrestrial setting in the
>>>>> solar system: much easier to=20 access and nearer to
>>>>> restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums=20 in those
>>>>> locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's=20
>>>>> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent
>>>>> analysis=20 I participated in suggests that one of the
>>>>> fastest ways to destroy=20 Earth would be to consume the
>>>>> unfathomably large amount of resources=20 that leaving the
>>>>> planet would require. So if you are attracted to=20 the
>>>>> notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it
>>>>> from=20 ourselves, think again!=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the
>>>>> 'exceptionism'=20 of Humans in the context of evolution).
>>>>My first reaction is that criticising an idea because somebody
>>>>believes in =
>>>>it without sufficient justification is a fallacy - pick
>>>>through mathematics=
>>>> homework and you find any number of broken proofs of true
>>>> theorems.
>>>
>>> Just as a note, the author of that article bounces lasers off
>>> the moon to measure it's orbit as his primary day job. I
>>> think he understands (and teaches)
>>> physics and mathematics rather well.
>>>
>>> Exponential growth cannot end well, and the idea that we can
>>> move any substantial numbers of humans off the planet before
>>> the resource train dries up is fantasy. What is the
>>> EROEI/EROI of raw materials retrieved from an asteroid? Or
>>> from Mars?
>>
>>If you assume static technology at any given time you too can
>>ridicule any though of advancement.
>
> Nobody, including the author of the above, assumes static
> technology.

Based on this article, I disagree.
>
> Did you bother to follow the link before commenting?
>

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tiuqtc$mhjd$3@dont-email.me:

> On 10/21/2022 1:17 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal
>> quoted, in part:
>>> Mount Everest and the
>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see
>>> condominiums in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to -
>>> because it's obviously silly, just like space colonization.
>>
>> What do you _gain_ by building a habitat on the ocean floor, or
>> on top of Mount Everest?
>>
>> He is right that building a habitat in space is more difficult.
>> On the other hand, once you've put a box around a space with
>> air, at least you don't have to worry about a hurricane
>> damaging it.
>>
>> But the problem with his statement isn't about his estimate of
>> the downside. The problem is that he utterly ignores the
>> *upside*.
>>
>> Build a habitat on Mars, and suddenly you have access to all
>> the resources of Mars. That *nobody else owns*. And the biggest
>> upside is that you're out of the reach of Russian and Chinese
>> nuclear missiles.
>>
>> Plus, if a dinosaur-killer size asteroid were to hit the Earth
>> and wipe out the whole human race there - then *afterwards*
>> some of the space colonists could return to Earth, which indeed
>> would still be the best-adapted place for human life, and
>> re-populate it with their descendants, continuing the human
>> story.
>>
>> If you ignore what makes space colonization worth the cost - if
>> you think of it as not any more valuable than a real-estate
>> development housing the same number of people - *of course*
>> its absurd, but it's *that way of thinking about it* that is
>> absurd.
>>
>> You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
>> decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> No you don't. Many people will go do something just because it
> is there.
>
That, too, is one of the things it could be for.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 12:24:49 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-cult-of-civilization/
> the following:
>
> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of
> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent
> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their
> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring
> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the
> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important
> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated
> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the
> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis
> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy
> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources
> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to
> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from
> ourselves, think again!
>
> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'
> of Humans in the context of evolution).

The following quote is from:

https://www.space.com/55-earths-moon-formation-composition-and-orbit.html

"The average composition of the lunar surface by weight is roughly
43% oxygen, 20% silicon, 19% magnesium, 10% iron, 3% calcium,
3% aluminum, 0.42% chromium, 0.18% titanium and 0.12% manganese."

The similarity to the elemental composition of the Earth's surface
has resulted in the general acceptance of the theory that the Moon
was formed from material knocked off of the Earth by the impact of
a Mars-sized body some four billion years ago.

Following the return of samples of the Lunar surface, researchers
made batches of simulated regolith with similar composition and
properties. Other researchers were then able to extract useful
quantities of pure elements from the simulated Lunar material
using processes that might reasonably be used on the Moon,
such as intense heat from a solar furnace and electrolysis
powered by solar cell arrays.

Extrapolating from this, it seems reasonable that a properly equipped
colony could process Lunar materials into an expanding industrial plant
with only limited imports from Earth.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> This is part of his longer argument that we need
> a way to /not/ break /this/ planet, which we currently
> are doing, because we won't get another one.

That is a sentiment I don't argue against. Not breaking
this planet is important, because obviously we don't
have the means to rescue every single person from Earth.

Only a very tiny fraction of Earth's people would leave Earth
to found any kind of colony in space.

However, I have not noted the existence of a World Government
that is able to order Russia not to invade Ukraine, or order
China to stop burning coal. We _should_ not break this planet,
but there is no way to *guarantee* that we will not do so.

For the descendants of a tiny fraction of humanity to survive,
after humanity on Earth is destroyed, in space colonies... is,
of course, a second-best. A _distant_ second best.

But it is still preferable to the complete annihilation of humanity.
We must strive to avoid that in every way we can, we must
strive to avoid that in the ways which have the best chance of
success. We must prepare for the worst, not because it is
certain to happen, but because it is not certain not to happen.

John Savard

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 1:11:44 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 10/21/2022 1:17 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

> > You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
> > decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.

> No you don't. Many people will go do something just because it is there.

That's a valid point. Of course, in the context, it's not really applicable;
I was responding to someone who was _against_ colonizing space,
his argument being that doing so would take a ridiculous amount of
effort.

Which would make sense if a space colony was nothing better than a
real-estate development, to house X number of people. But that was a
mistaken assumption.

Since there _are_ people who think that space is important that do have
access to a significant amount of resources - i.e. Elon Musk - it is true
that I can't entirely dismiss the possibility of someone venturing into
space "because it is there" as with Mount Everest.

John Savard

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> This is part of his longer argument that we need
> a way to /not/ break /this/ planet, which we currently
> are doing, because we won't get another one.

If _that_ were what he was arguing, I would agree with
him. However, instead, I am in very strong disagreement
with what he wrote at the link. Because when I followed
the link, what I saw was:

Human lives aren't more important than the lives of
other animals.

The way to "not break this planet" is for civilization to
collapse, and technological progress to end.

So a *somewhat larger* fraction of humanity would survive
than in the case where the whole Earth was wiped clear of
humans, and only space colonists survived. But then that
remnant would live as illiterate hunter-gatherers until the
Earth someday became uninhabitable through natural causes.

The human race, in such a scenario, would lose its meaning
and purpose.

The whole point is to strive for:

- the survival of ALL humanity, which means that our agricultural
production must not be interrupted by any interference with the
lifelines on which it depends,

- the continued survival of civilization, technological progress,
and political liberty, that human life might be meaningful, and
that succeeding generations will continue to honor the deeds
of their ancestors.

He gave up on that. His idea of 'not breaking this planet'
is not much different from, or much better than, annihilation.
Of course that humans would continue to live, to make love,
to sing, and so on, certainly is _some_ consolation, but in
his future, the human race, after its passing, will have had no
more cosmic impact than the race of ants.

Of course, the ambition to "do great things" _can_ lead
people in the wrong direction, to do things that are harmful
rather than beneficial. But being cautious and watchful...
and rejecting what makes us human... are two different
things, and he is advocating for the latter, not the former.

John Savard

On 10/21/2022 8:25 PM, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 12:24:49 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-cult-of-civilization/
>> the following:
>>
>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of
>> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent
>> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their
>> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring
>> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the
>> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important
>> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated
>> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the
>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
>> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis
>> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy
>> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources
>> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to
>> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from
>> ourselves, think again!
>>
>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'
>> of Humans in the context of evolution).
>
> The following quote is from:
>
> https://www.space.com/55-earths-moon-formation-composition-and-orbit.html
>
> "The average composition of the lunar surface by weight is roughly
> 43% oxygen, 20% silicon, 19% magnesium, 10% iron, 3% calcium,
> 3% aluminum, 0.42% chromium, 0.18% titanium and 0.12% manganese."
>
> The similarity to the elemental composition of the Earth's surface
> has resulted in the general acceptance of the theory that the Moon
> was formed from material knocked off of the Earth by the impact of
> a Mars-sized body some four billion years ago.
>
> Following the return of samples of the Lunar surface, researchers
> made batches of simulated regolith with similar composition and
> properties. Other researchers were then able to extract useful
> quantities of pure elements from the simulated Lunar material
> using processes that might reasonably be used on the Moon,
> such as intense heat from a solar furnace and electrolysis
> powered by solar cell arrays.
>
> Extrapolating from this, it seems reasonable that a properly equipped
> colony could process Lunar materials into an expanding industrial plant
> with only limited imports from Earth.
>
But that would undermine his whole "We must fix Mother Earth first!" screed.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:56:10 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> writes:
>>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:24:49 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-c=
>>ult-of-civilization/=20
>>> the following:=20
>>>=20
>>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of=20
>>> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent=20
>>> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their=20
>>> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring=20
>>> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the=20
>>> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important=20
>>> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated=20
>>> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the=20
>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any=20
>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to=20
>>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums=20
>>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's=20
>>> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis=20
>>> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy=20
>>> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources=20
>>> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to=20
>>> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from=20
>>> ourselves, think again!=20
>>>=20
>>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'=20
>>> of Humans in the context of evolution).
>>My first reaction is that criticising an idea because somebody believes in =
>>it without sufficient justification is a fallacy - pick through mathematics=
>> homework and you find any number of broken proofs of true theorems.
>
>Just as a note, the author of that article bounces lasers off the moon to measure
>it's orbit as his primary day job. I think he understands (and teaches)
>physics and mathematics rather well.
>
>Exponential growth cannot end well, and the idea that we can move any
>substantial numbers of humans off the planet before the resource
>train dries up is fantasy. What is the EROEI/EROI of raw materials
>retrieved from an asteroid? Or from Mars?

We don't need to move any substantial numbers of people off the
planet.

We can /grow/ them locally once the original colonists settle in.

And if we colonize the Moon first, we can get larger numbers of
colonists for Mars once the Moon colony has grown enough of them.
Using really large ships built in space, not the puny things NASA is
thinking of.

What we /need/ is a way for the 1%-ers to make money on the deal.
That's when it will happen.

It has been pointed out by Science Fiction authors for decades that we
cannot move people off the planet faster than new ones are born.

Well, with teleportation gates (really big ones), maybe. Certainly not
by rockets.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 05:29:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> This is part of his longer argument that we need
>> a way to /not/ break /this/ planet, which we currently
>> are doing, because we won't get another one.
>
>If _that_ were what he was arguing, I would agree with
>him. However, instead, I am in very strong disagreement
>with what he wrote at the link. Because when I followed
>the link, what I saw was:
>
>Human lives aren't more important than the lives of
>other animals.
>
>The way to "not break this planet" is for civilization to
>collapse, and technological progress to end.
>
>So a *somewhat larger* fraction of humanity would survive
>than in the case where the whole Earth was wiped clear of
>humans, and only space colonists survived. But then that
>remnant would live as illiterate hunter-gatherers until the
>Earth someday became uninhabitable through natural causes.
>
>The human race, in such a scenario, would lose its meaning
>and purpose.
>
>The whole point is to strive for:
>
>- the survival of ALL humanity, which means that our agricultural
>production must not be interrupted by any interference with the
>lifelines on which it depends,
>
>- the continued survival of civilization, technological progress,
>and political liberty, that human life might be meaningful, and
>that succeeding generations will continue to honor the deeds
>of their ancestors.
>
>He gave up on that. His idea of 'not breaking this planet'
>is not much different from, or much better than, annihilation.
>Of course that humans would continue to live, to make love,
>to sing, and so on, certainly is _some_ consolation, but in
>his future, the human race, after its passing, will have had no
>more cosmic impact than the race of ants.
>
>Of course, the ambition to "do great things" _can_ lead
>people in the wrong direction, to do things that are harmful
>rather than beneficial. But being cautious and watchful...
>and rejecting what makes us human... are two different
>things, and he is advocating for the latter, not the former.

IIRC, /Interstellar/ starts by depicting a world run by those who
think the way this guy does.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:56:10 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> writes:
>>>On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:24:49 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-c=
>>>ult-of-civilization/=20
>>>> the following:=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of=20
>>>> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent=20
>>>> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their=20
>>>> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring=20
>>>> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the=20
>>>> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important=20
>>>> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated=20
>>>> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the=20
>>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any=20
>>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to=20
>>>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums=20
>>>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's=20
>>>> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis=20
>>>> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy=20
>>>> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources=20
>>>> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to=20
>>>> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from=20
>>>> ourselves, think again!=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'=20
>>>> of Humans in the context of evolution).
>>>My first reaction is that criticising an idea because somebody believes in =
>>>it without sufficient justification is a fallacy - pick through mathematics=
>>> homework and you find any number of broken proofs of true theorems.
>>
>>Just as a note, the author of that article bounces lasers off the moon to measure
>>it's orbit as his primary day job. I think he understands (and teaches)
>>physics and mathematics rather well.
>>
>>Exponential growth cannot end well, and the idea that we can move any
>>substantial numbers of humans off the planet before the resource
>>train dries up is fantasy. What is the EROEI/EROI of raw materials
>>retrieved from an asteroid? Or from Mars?
>
>We don't need to move any substantial numbers of people off the
>planet.

So, perhaps a couple hundred on the moon or Mars? At what cost?

>
>We can /grow/ them locally once the original colonists settle in.

Can we? Have the implications of raising young in such an environment
been fully understood? Radiation damage alone may preclude that.
Then where are the colonists going to get all raw materials and food
if they're not shipped from earth? It takes energy to make energy;
will there be enough? Handwaving about the quality of insolation
on the moon doesn't answer the question of where the harvesting
technology (solar panels, etc) are coming from, and where the energy
to make the solar panels (mining, refining, fabrication, etc) comes
from.

I enjoy science fiction as much as anyone, but it is, after all,
fiction.

>
>And if we colonize the Moon first, we can get larger numbers of
>colonists for Mars once the Moon colony has grown enough of them.
>Using really large ships built in space, not the puny things NASA is
>thinking of.

Where are you getting the energy to do this? (Rocket fuel isn't free,
and every erg used to produce it is basically gone forever and can't
be used to raise the quality of life on the planet).

Dr. Murphy's assertions are backed by the physics of exponential growth,
which is the predicate of the current economic system. The growth
is _clearly_ unsustainable over the long run (if only because of
the waste heat that would be the result of power production near
the end of the curve - which extrapolated from current rates, shows
that the surface temperature of earth would be 212F four hundred
years from now, and uninhabitable far sooner). Note that it doesn't matter
the what the source of that energy is (nuclear, ff, wind, solar) they
all generate heat (often wasted) when the energy is consumed.

>
>What we /need/ is a way for the 1%-ers to make money on the deal.
>That's when it will happen.

Sure. More handwavey.

Musk is an outlier, hardly representative, and a bit of a jerk.

On Saturday, 22 October 2022 at 13:29:41 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > This is part of his longer argument that we need
> > a way to /not/ break /this/ planet, which we currently
> > are doing, because we won't get another one.
> If _that_ were what he was arguing, I would agree with
> him. However, instead, I am in very strong disagreement
> with what he wrote at the link. Because when I followed
> the link, what I saw was:
>
> Human lives aren't more important than the lives of
> other animals.

I think he means: the universe doesn't prefer
humans, and we can't expect it to bend the rules
in our favour. See "The Cold Equations" applied
to an entire planet.

> The way to "not break this planet" is for civilization to
> collapse, and technological progress to end.

I think he means: overconsumption, unsustainable
activity. He does seem to think that technological
progress is pretty much over anyway.

Modern agricultural methods lead to soil blowing
away and ending up in the sea. If we keep that up,
it'll catch us out.

For the rest of your argument, have you read
C. S. Lewis's _Out of the Silent Planet_?
An Earth explorer on Mars makes a speech about
Earth humans spreading and colonising and evolving,
and he gets the response, "Why? You /have/ a planet
to live on." From a Martian... (This Mars is inhabited,
but slowly dying; life is concentrated in the famous
"canals", actually valleys. The Martians are sitting it out.)

On 2022-10-21 12:17 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal quoted, in part:
>> Mount Everest and the
>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
>> obviously silly, just like space colonization.
>
> What do you _gain_ by building a habitat on the ocean floor, or
> on top of Mount Everest?
>
> He is right that building a habitat in space is more difficult. On
> the other hand, once you've put a box around a space with air,
> at least you don't have to worry about a hurricane damaging it.
>
> But the problem with his statement isn't about his estimate of the
> downside. The problem is that he utterly ignores the *upside*.
>
> Build a habitat on Mars, and suddenly you have access to all the
> resources of Mars.

No you don't. In order to have access to all the resources of Mars you
would need a global resource extraction and transportation network
already in place. In reality build a habitat on Mars and suddenly you
have access to all the resources within about a mile of it that you can
extract using hand tools. Maybe a really expensive backhoe. The
European colonization of the New World was driven by gold, tobacco and
beaver pelts. What does Mars have to drive a colonization venture?

That *nobody else owns*. And the biggest
> upside is that you're out of the reach of Russian and Chinese
> nuclear missiles.

No. You aren't. If the technology exists to send 10,000 people to Mars
then the technology exists to send a nuclear warhead to Mars. Now, of
course they might not bother because the Mars colony is worthless...but
the problem with that is that the Mars colony is worthless.

>
> Plus, if a dinosaur-killer size asteroid were to hit the Earth and
> wipe out the whole human race there - then *afterwards* some of
> the space colonists could return to Earth, which indeed would still
> be the best-adapted place for human life, and re-populate it with
> their descendants, continuing the human story.

A once in an eon catastrophe is not a sound economic basis for a major
enterprise.

>
> If you ignore what makes space colonization worth the cost - if
> you think of it as not any more valuable than a real-estate
> development housing the same number of people - *of course*
> its absurd, but it's *that way of thinking about it* that is absurd.
>
> You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
> decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.

I agree entirely. Problem is, I've never been able to think of what the
space colony is for apart from letting Elon Musk crown himself the king
of Mars.

On 2022-10-21 1:11 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 10/21/2022 1:17 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal
>> quoted, in part:
>>> Mount Everest and the
>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
>>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
>>> obviously silly, just like space colonization.
>>
>> What do you _gain_ by building a habitat on the ocean floor, or
>> on top of Mount Everest?
>>
>> He is right that building a habitat in space is more difficult. On
>> the other hand, once you've put a box around a space with air,
>> at least you don't have to worry about a hurricane damaging it.
>>
>> But the problem with his statement isn't about his estimate of the
>> downside. The problem is that he utterly ignores the *upside*.
>>
>> Build a habitat on Mars, and suddenly you have access to all the
>> resources of Mars. That *nobody else owns*. And the biggest
>> upside is that you're out of the reach of Russian and Chinese
>> nuclear missiles.
>>
>> Plus, if a dinosaur-killer size asteroid were to hit the Earth and
>> wipe out the whole human race there - then *afterwards* some of
>> the space colonists could return to Earth, which indeed would still
>> be the best-adapted place for human life, and re-populate it with
>> their descendants, continuing the human story.
>>
>> If you ignore what makes space colonization worth the cost - if
>> you think of it as not any more valuable than a real-estate
>> development housing the same number of people - *of course*
>> its absurd, but it's *that way of thinking about it* that is absurd.
>>
>> You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
>> decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> No you don't.  Many people will go do something just because it is there.

That's a reason to visit. It isn't a reason to stay.

On 2022-10-21 9:25 p.m., peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 12:24:49 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Dr. Tom Murphy at UCSD writes in https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/10/the-cult-of-civilization/
>> the following:
>>
>> Space colonization is an infantile fantasy that is not part of
>> our future. Provocative wording, for sure, but to me reminiscent
>> of the Mormon idea that the especially devout would inherit their
>> own planet in the afterlife. If you subscribe to the space-faring
>> hope, ask yourself how deeply you understand the challenges: the
>> scale, energetic requirements, the paucity of resources important
>> to sustaining life, the indifferent hostility and isolated
>> unsurvivability of non-earth environments. Mount Everest and the
>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
>> obviously silly, just like space colonization. A recent analysis
>> I participated in suggests that one of the fastest ways to destroy
>> Earth would be to consume the unfathomably large amount of resources
>> that leaving the planet would require. So if you are attracted to
>> the notion that leaving the planet is the best way to save it from
>> ourselves, think again!
>>
>> Thoughts? (Note that he starts out by discounting the 'exceptionism'
>> of Humans in the context of evolution).
>
> The following quote is from:
>
> https://www.space.com/55-earths-moon-formation-composition-and-orbit.html
>
> "The average composition of the lunar surface by weight is roughly
> 43% oxygen, 20% silicon, 19% magnesium, 10% iron, 3% calcium,
> 3% aluminum, 0.42% chromium, 0.18% titanium and 0.12% manganese."
>
> The similarity to the elemental composition of the Earth's surface
> has resulted in the general acceptance of the theory that the Moon
> was formed from material knocked off of the Earth by the impact of
> a Mars-sized body some four billion years ago.
>
> Following the return of samples of the Lunar surface, researchers
> made batches of simulated regolith with similar composition and
> properties. Other researchers were then able to extract useful
> quantities of pure elements from the simulated Lunar material
> using processes that might reasonably be used on the Moon,
> such as intense heat from a solar furnace and electrolysis
> powered by solar cell arrays.
>
> Extrapolating from this, it seems reasonable that a properly equipped
> colony could process Lunar materials into an expanding industrial plant
> with only limited imports from Earth.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that these things are in fact
useful on the moon for something. Why would we need to send a whole
colony of people there for such an operation? People who, one notes,
would have very poor life expectancy while living under 1/6th gravity
without a heck of a lot of genetic engineering.