Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote: Yes, an absurd fantasy, just like dreams of a person stepping on the moon. Impossible.

Some other great fantasies and absurdities down through history, completely dismissed by knowledgeable people of the day: a non-flat Earth, heliocentric systems, galaxies, landing a craft on a comet, atoms, exoplanets, evolution ...
No nothing like that at all. The moon is only 230,000 miles away.
Do you admit that there are some things that are impossible? Walking on the sun for example?

Finding and colonising a suitable planet outside the solar system is absurd. We are evolved to life on the earth; it has everything we need - right here. It is next to impossible that another such planet anywhere reachable in the universe exists whose biome would not be immediately hostile to human life; or whose atmosphere would be breathable; at reasonable temperatures.
Why would we seek such a place when it would take more than a lifetime to reach it, and would take more energy and resources than an entire country to reach it?
"Only 230,000 miles away" (384,000 kms) - that is a hell of a long way for a species that was locked to the Earth's surface for most of its existence. A Moon landing at the time of HG Wells was pure fantasy, an impossibility.

I think it likely that there will be some colonisation o...

It's a shockingly short distance, compared to the next body in the solar system, and no distance at all compared to anywhere we might have a tiny chance to live.
BTW, space flight, as a physical reality, was first conceived over 2000 years ago, by Greek Thinkers, and many such as Newton thought it possible.
By 1968 the plan was to have a fully functioning Moon Base with regular tourist trips to and fro by the year 2000. This is NEVER going to happen, because the only thing of interest is the fun sensation of zero gravity and low gravity when you are their - things that the human body is ill equipped to deal with. And to burn your life savings for a cheap thrill is not an economic proposition.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:But the speculation requires that it meets that criterion.
Seriously I doubt we will ever have any interest in making a manned mission to Mars. And the astronauts would be fools to go.
I agree with you with the current spaceship model but if Orion or something like it ever gets back on the drawing boards then things would be much more feasible. Most of the planets are of little interest other than scientific curiosity but given the scale of the possible resources out there we'd be mad not to go get them if we had the methods and we have had a pretty feasible method since the 50's.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Arising_uk wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:But the speculation requires that it meets that criterion.
Seriously I doubt we will ever have any interest in making a manned mission to Mars. And the astronauts would be fools to go.
I agree with you with the current spaceship model but if Orion or something like it ever gets back on the drawing boards then things would be much more feasible. Most of the planets are of little interest other than scientific curiosity but given the scale of the possible resources out there we'd be mad not to go get them if we had the methods and we have had a pretty feasible method since the 50's.
I think not. Were there a mountain of gold waiting to be picked up on Mars or probably even the moon, it would be uneconomic to take the trip.
Whatever is no the drawing board, you are talking about 2 years minimum, with too little gravity to sustain health when you get there, and that is providing you simulate gravity on the trip.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think not. Were there a mountain of gold waiting to be picked up on Mars or probably even the moon, it would be uneconomic to take the trip. Whatever is no the drawing board, you are talking about 2 years minimum, with too little gravity to sustain health when you get there, and that is providing you simulate gravity on the trip.
Sorry, after the bit about the planets being pretty much of scientific interest only I forgot to add that it's the asteroid we should be interested in as this is where the bulk of the resources are. But the satellites are also interesting as a source of resources, so the Moon appears to have a lot of Helium3 which may be able to jump-start the development of fusion-reactors and the Chinese look to be planning to try and do just that, mine the Moon for it, which along the way will also give them a nice chunk of other useful ores, titanium for one. But I agree its all very speculative about how much is on the Moon and whether its worth it whereas the asteroids are clearly resource rich.

I think you're not getting what the Orion was going to be capable of, even the small one would make a round-trip to Mars in six months, that's not that long for a mountain of gold which would revolutionize the computer, electronic and space industries, albeit by making it pretty much worthless. :)
And there's a major problem as what private company would invest in something that by its very abundance could make it market worthless compared to the cost of getting it. I think it'd have to be a nation that does this or a company that wants to use it for another process or product.

I also agree that the money could probably be better spent on renewables if we are only considering energy generation but then think that a huge supply of iron would be very handy in building many things in the first place. Although again it'd crash the world metals economy for a while but the benefits would probably be huge as well.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Arising_uk wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think not. Were there a mountain of gold waiting to be picked up on Mars or probably even the moon, it would be uneconomic to take the trip. Whatever is no the drawing board, you are talking about 2 years minimum, with too little gravity to sustain health when you get there, and that is providing you simulate gravity on the trip.
Sorry, after the bit about the planets being pretty much of scientific interest only I forgot to add that it's the asteroid we should be interested in as this is where the bulk of the resources are. But the satellites are also interesting as a source of resources, so the Moon appears to have a lot of Helium3 which may be able to jump-start the development of fusion-reactors and the Chinese look to be planning to try and do just that, mine the Moon for it, which along the way will also give them a nice chunk of other useful ores, titanium for one. But I agree its all very speculative about how much is on the Moon and whether its worth it whereas the asteroids are clearly resource rich.

I think you're not getting what the Orion was going to be capable of, even the small one would make a round-trip to Mars in six months, that's not that long for a mountain of gold which would revolutionize the computer, electronic and space industries, albeit by making it pretty much worthless. :)
And there's a major problem as what private company would invest in something that by its very abundance could make it market worthless compared to the cost of getting it. I think it'd have to be a nation that does this or a company that wants to use it for another process or product.

I also agree that the money could probably be better spent on renewables if we are only considering energy generation but then think that a huge supply of iron would be very handy in building many things in the first place. Although again it'd crash the world metals economy for a while but the benefits would probably be huge as well.
You are dreaming.
Space exploration is a vanity project.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are dreaming.
Space exploration is a vanity project.
Well for sure its a dream but I guess you'd have said, de Gama, Columbus, Magellan, et al, "Don't go, it's just a vanity project!"

You don't seem to get that we've pretty much had the means since the 50's to explore the Solar System and personally I think we'd better as many of the resources we need are in abundance there and I don't see that some 'green awakening' is on the horizon any time soon. There's two countries out there fast heading to 3 billion people and heavily industrialising, add to that everyone else and their mother wants our lifestyle do you think energy and resource consumption is going to lessen despite the more efficient use of energy and technology?

You think that population growth is going to decrease?

I agree that renewables are going to be an important part of the the future and that the 'rich' 'West' better be leading the way but it won't be enough for the demand and just one good asteroid could supply all the nickel/iron we'd need for centuries add to that that most of the water in the Solar System is out there and not here I think the economic case for a nation or the world to get there is going to become inescapable.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Arising_uk wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are dreaming.
Space exploration is a vanity project.
Well for sure its a dream but I guess you'd have said, de Gama, Columbus, Magellan, et al, "Don't go, it's just a vanity project!"
.
False analogy, and you ought to know it.
Those guys were working for money, and they made a bundle.
In space there is no search for the trade routes to the Indies, which was the motivating force for it all happening from the 15thC, and not before - though the Vikings demonstrated that it was always possible with the technology they had.
The discovery of the Americas by Europe and the Near East was possible long before Colombo and the Vikings.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Arising_uk wrote:
You think that population growth is going to decrease?

I agree that renewables are going to be an important part of the the future and that the 'rich' 'West' better be leading the way but it won't be enough for the demand and just one good asteroid could supply all the nickel/iron we'd need for centuries add to that that most of the water in the Solar System is out there and not here I think the economic case for a nation or the world to get there is going to become inescapable.
It does not matter what the population does, it is simply easier to stay here than spend 3 lifetimes trying to reach an uncertain future. It would be easier to ring the earth with habitable satellites than try to build a colony on Mars, let alone anywhere else.
The rich will want to stay the the poor will not be able to leave. There is nothing more here.

My guess is that population control, however difficult, is always going to be more economic, and the burden of more people who are less capable of doing jobs done more effectively by machines is going to mean fewer people.

Population growth rate is now close to zero in the West and most places around the world, outside of Africa, are now following that trend. Population growth is far less certain that the failure of the dream of space colonisation. Which is already a dead duck.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Impenitent »

too many people?

start another war...

history never repeats

-Imp
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:False analogy, and you ought to know it.
Those guys were working for money, and they made a bundle. ...
And yet they left with no idea whether they'd live to spend it.
In space there is no search for the trade routes to the Indies, which was the motivating force for it all happening from the 15thC, and not before - though the Vikings demonstrated that it was always possible with the technology they had. ...
And they went for what reason?

There is vast wealth awaiting those who manage to exploit the resources of the Solar System, particularly asteroids.
The discovery of the Americas by Europe and the Near East was possible long before Colombo and the Vikings.
Not sure of Europe? but can see the Bearing Strait would work.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It does not matter what the population does, it is simply easier to stay here than spend 3 lifetimes trying to reach an uncertain future. ...
You're still not getting it, I'm taking about intrastellar travel not interstellar. Orion pusher-plate type ships could make Mars in weeks, Saturn in months.
It would be easier to ring the earth with habitable satellites than try to build a colony on Mars, let alone anywhere else. ...
I agree, Orbitals would be the way to go, colonies would not. But to build on such a scale you'd need the vast resources available in the asteroids first.
The rich will want to stay the the poor will not be able to leave. There is nothing more here. ...
Where?
My guess is that population control, however difficult, is always going to be more economic, and the burden of more people who are less capable of doing jobs done more effectively by machines is going to mean fewer people. ...
Why? Surely they'll have more time and leisure to procreate.
Population growth rate is now close to zero in the West and most places around the world, outside of Africa, are now following that trend. Population growth is far less certain that the failure of the dream of space colonisation. Which is already a dead duck.
It's a dead-duck with rockets but it's been feasible since the 50's but the Test Ban treaty put the kibosh on that.

Population growth has slowed in the West due to wealth and China due to policy but India, et al are still growing pretty fast and China is about to again. It appears to be having a middle class and giving women an education and economic opportunity slows population in the West, so for this to work the rest of the world is going to have to get up to our living standards and that's going to cost and drain resources, where are you going to get them other than from the vast resources of the Solar System?
p.s.
Apparently the US has reclassified Dyson's, et al's, work once again. So looks like they might be thinking of going that way once more.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

Impenitent wrote:too many people?

start another war...

history never repeats

-Imp
And yet each time the population grows.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Arising_uk wrote:Population growth has slowed in the West due to wealth and China due to policy but India, et al are still growing pretty fast and China is about to again. It appears to be having a middle class and giving women an education and economic opportunity slows population in the West, so for this to work the rest of the world is going to have to get up to our living standards and that's going to cost and drain resources, where are you going to get them other than from the vast resources of the Solar System?.
This is a map of global fertility rates. Blue means they are a little below the replacement rate (2.1 offspring per lady), green means a little above.
20 years ago the blue bits were basically Japan, Italy and China. And most of what's green here would have been orange, including India.
Image
The Malthusian population explosion thing may be fun for those who enjoy a good panic, but is basically the next Peak Oil scare, based as it is on clumsily reading a graph of the past into the future without much scrutiny.

You have misidentified the trends that bring down fertility rates. Later marriage due to girls staying in school is a major one which does not rely on western levels of lifestyle. Reduced child mortality due to clean water, basic sanitation, and vaccination campaigns is another. Radio is one, although I understand the jury is out on TV. It is probably more accurate to describe modest levels of fertility as a precondition of high living standards than as a result.

The resources necessary for a modern living standard for all humanity are available here on Earth. Helium3 for instance might one day be a useful source of local power for moon bases, but fixing the engineering problems necessary to use this exotic alien material useful would simultaneously make the locally abundant Deuterium equally useful down on this little blue dot right here.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

FlashDangerpants wrote:This is a map of global fertility rates. Blue means they are a little below the replacement rate (2.1 offspring per lady), green means a little above. 20 years ago the blue bits were basically Japan, Italy and China. And most of what's green here would have been orange, including India.
Image
The Malthusian population explosion thing may be fun for those who enjoy a good panic, but is basically the next Peak Oil scare, based as it is on clumsily reading a graph of the past into the future without much scrutiny. ...
Who's talking about explosions? I was thinking about the medium estimate of 10-11 billion all wanting a reasonable technological lifestyle.

I think China is a false flag on that map because they have artificially reduced their birth-rate and now appear to be in the process of reversing that move.
You have misidentified the trends that bring down fertility rates. Later marriage due to girls staying in school is a major one which does not rely on western levels of lifestyle. ...
Ok but this relies upon western sensibilities does it not?
Reduced child mortality due to clean water, basic sanitation, and vaccination campaigns is another. ...
Again the western sensibility of providing for one's poor.
Radio is one, although I understand the jury is out on TV. It is probably more accurate to describe modest levels of fertility as a precondition of high living standards than as a result. ...
Hmmm...okay but I thought it more due to a lot of people dying in the last war as it looks like the millennials are going to have a lower standard of living despite low levels of fertility?
The resources necessary for a modern living standard for all humanity are available here on Earth. ...
For all 10 billion?
Helium3 for instance might one day be a useful source of local power for moon bases, but fixing the engineering problems necessary to use this exotic alien material useful would simultaneously make the locally abundant Deuterium equally useful down on this little blue dot right here.
I'll take your word for this but how so?

I personally doubt moon-bases would be that useful other than as mining ops for a space-industry based upon fusion engines but since I think we could be exploring now just with fission pusher-plates I don;t have much of a dog-in-this-fight about Helium3.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Honestly, as far as the Helium 3 thing goes I've wildly exceeded my understanding by just parroting what I have seen written elsewhere. The fact is that all commercial processes for fusion based power generation are currently speculative and the appeal of H3 is widely seen as a wishful notion to justify another desire (space stuff) rather than the cold hard only solution to our energy woes it is often misrepresented to be.

During the 30 odd years of the one child policy, Chinese fertility actually declined at a similar rate to India's, where repressing family planning was a much less centralised sort of deal. It is highly unlikely that China is about to have a big population splurge now. Maybe they will have an uptick back to replacement levels, maybe not.
Image

Millennials having a lower standard of living than some other generation is pretty doubtful. It's another case of analysing a complex subject by drawing a couple of lines on a graph and pretending they cover a range of circumstances they couldn't possibly. In an economics forum I would demand to know which measure (HDI, GDP per C, GDP on PPP basis at constant dollar?) of "standard of living" you refer to. In a philosophy forum I might merely invite you to consider why there are so many available measures, and whether that excess indicates a failure of all to capture the crucial details of the phenomenon they aim to describe?
For all 10 billion?
Yes. I can't think of anything we might need to mine from asteroids that makes any significant difference either.
Post Reply