Common Courtesy

[henry quirk]

"Thus there needs to be caution in effecting further radical changes to natural environments before we understand the roles they play in larger systems."

I say throw caution on the ground and stomp it till its friggin' guts squirt out.

I see Super-Orions blastin' away from unihabited deserts, ridin' pulses of pure ATOMIC hell up and out, movin' at half the speed of GOD.

I see massive resource-rich rocks pinballed through the system, ground down to their constituents: steel for even larger Orions, fissionables for POWER.

I see humanity, as it moves through the system, adapting itself, tailoring itself, creating tens, then hundreds, then thousands of clades, some capable of thriving in hard vac, immune to hard particle radiation.

I see THE FUTURE: Earth is no longer a neccessity, and instead is just an option, one best left to crones and commies.

[Greta]

"Thus there needs to be caution in effecting further radical changes to natural environments before we understand the roles they play in larger systems."

I say throw caution on the ground and stomp it till its friggin' guts squirt out.

I see Super-Orions blastin' away from unihabited deserts, ridin' pulses of pure ATOMIC hell up and out, movin' at half the speed of GOD.

I see massive resource-rich rocks pinballed through the system, ground down to their constituents: steel for even larger Orions, fissionables for POWER.

I see humanity, as it moves through the system, adapting itself, tailoring itself, creating tens, then hundreds, then thousands of clades, some capable of thriving in hard vac, immune to hard particle radiation.

I see THE FUTURE: Earth is no longer a neccessity, and instead is just an option, one best left to crones and commies.

This is simply an admission that you are not grounded in reality. I write science fiction too - but I can tell the difference between fiction and reality.

Yes yes, we know the Sun will heat up and boil off the world's oceans in a billion years' time. We know that one day all of this will end, but that is no reason to destroy all of nature as soon as possible - which is clearly the aim of many nature-hating, Apocalypse-loving evangelist Christians. If that was sensible then everyone might as well kill themselves now sine they will die anyway.

Not sure why an atheist like you should be siding with them. My impression is that you don't appear fit neatly into any category, just a single isolated and damaged misanthropist. Oh well.

The idea is to slow the changes as much as possible to cushion the impacts of change for as many people and others as possible. However, as one who clearly loathes most people, this is not important to you. I too I expect that eventually only the descendants of billionaires and their machines will survive. Unlike you, I'm not in a rush to get there.

[henry quirk]

"This is simply an admission that you are not grounded in reality."

Everything I mentioned above is already in proof of concept or beyond. Nuclear pulse propulsion, asteroid mining, gengineering...you, who so loves science, oughta know that.

What's not grounded in reality: that humanity can stay 'here' forever.

#

"My impression is that you don't appear fit neatly into any category"

One accurate observation: you get a (tiny, useless) GOLD STAR.

[Greta]

"This is simply an admission that you are not grounded in reality."

Everything I mentioned above is already in proof of concept or beyond. Nuclear pulse propulsion, asteroid mining, gengineering...you, who so loves science, oughta know that.

What's not grounded in reality: that humanity can stay 'here' forever.

#

"My impression is that you don't appear fit neatly into any category"

One accurate observation: you get a (tiny, useless) GOLD STAR.

Proof of concept means zip. As I say, you are not on terra firma here. Realistically, the only way anyone is getting out of "here" long term is as data packets - data packets of important people. Radiation. Gravity. Nutrients. Air. Lack of privacy, stimulation or room (at least much space). People would need to live as if in submarines for a long time, dying like flies of unexpected ailments. We flesh & blood humans have as much chance of creating permanent settlements of humans on the bottom of the Mariana Trench as we do on Mars, Titan or Pluto.

In the meantime, we have children and grandchildren to leave a world to, and slowing the destruction is to their benefit. Do you think they also can "go and get fucked"?

[TimeSeeker]

Proof of concept means zip. As I say, you are not on terra firma here.

A proof of concept sure means more than ideas-on-paper. There are problems of realisation and problems of scalability.

Realistically, the only way anyone is getting out of "here" long term is as data packets - data packets of important people.

And what's going to receive/parse those data packets on the "other end"? Where is the "other end" and who's going to build the receiver there?

In the meantime, we have children and grandchildren to leave a world to, and slowing the destruction is to their benefit. Do you think they also can "go and get fucked"?

Now THAT is a short-term view of humanity. On an infinite timelime we are already extinct. Ergodic theory. The sooner we become multi-planetary - the better our chance of survival.

The millions or billions of people you save now don't compare (numerically) to the number of lives you would save if the human race survives a million years.

Temporal-discounting is a curse! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference ). That's why Christianity promised after-life, because egocentrism is going to end us as species!

[Dalek Prime]

Don't have children, no one gets fucked. And no one suffers. Yes, I know it's not going to happen, but I'll insist it's the most 'humane' way.

This evolutionary process will end one of two ways. With future generations of suffering ahead. Or peacefully, with the universe going about its business, unheeded and unneeded.

It's no tragedy that I'm not an ancestor of the last humans. Where would the tragedy be if none of us were; that we were the last humans? Of our own volition, from the deepest love.

[commonsense]

Informal languages ARE infinitely flexible. Philosophers like Derrida have shown this to be the case, but since you are a lniguist I shouldn't have to point you to philosophy and point you at the Chomsky hierarchy instead.

Here is my proof.

1+1 = 2 is true.
1 + 1 = 10 is also true.

How can this be?!?! Interpretation. Decimal vs Binary number system.

So by the transitive property in logic...

2 = 10. Of course it is true! In the context above.

You can't fix this in any language without type theory (Lambda calculus) and normative interpretation rules.

The radix subscript is missing from the equations, making the notations equivocal. Include the complete terms to eliminate confusion.

Mathematical notation (and all scientific notation) is not an apt example of the necessity of normative rules.

[Most people would assume (interpret) that no subscript ordinarily means base 10, but if an equation makes no sense in base 10 and it does make sense in binary, then they would assume base 2. This is especially important when you have a term in hex without the digits A…F.]

[TimeSeeker]

Informal languages ARE infinitely flexible. Philosophers like Derrida have shown this to be the case, but since you are a lniguist I shouldn't have to point you to philosophy and point you at the Chomsky hierarchy instead.

Here is my proof.

1+1 = 2 is true.
1 + 1 = 10 is also true.

How can this be?!?! Interpretation. Decimal vs Binary number system.

So by the transitive property in logic...

2 = 10. Of course it is true! In the context above.

You can't fix this in any language without type theory (Lambda calculus) and normative interpretation rules.

The radix subscript is missing from the equations, making the notations equivocal. Include the complete terms to eliminate confusion.

Mathematical notation (and all scientific notation) is not an apt example of the necessity of normative rules.

[Most people would assume (interpret) that no subscript ordinarily means base 10, but if an equation makes no sense in base 10 and it does make sense in binary, then they would assume base 2. This is especially important when you have a term in hex without the digits A…F.]

Nonsense. Most people would infer from the context what I mean when I say 2 = 10. No need to be explicit about the radix anymore than I need to be explicit about the meaning of synonyms.

Do recognise the explicit vs implicit distinction though and let us know how you decide when to use which. When is ambiguity tolerable?

Also: what if there is a knowledge mismatch between interlocutors and one is aware of the binary interpretation while the other isn’t?

There are no objective rules for interpretation... that is why non-regular languages contain no truth. Except by accident. Wiio’s law.

[Greta]

Realistically, the only way anyone is getting out of "here" long term is as data packets - data packets of important people.

And what's going to receive/parse those data packets on the "other end"? Where is the "other end" and who's going to build the receiver there?

I have some thoughts. Wan't to take a guess?

Bottom line, though, we either get off the planet in data packets or not at all.[/quote]

In the meantime, we have children and grandchildren to leave a world to, and slowing the destruction is to their benefit. Do you think they also can "go and get fucked"?

Now THAT is a short-term view of humanity. On an infinite timelime we are already extinct. Ergodic theory. The sooner we become multi-planetary - the better our chance of survival.

The millions or billions of people you save now don't compare (numerically) to the number of lives you would save if the human race survives a million years.

Temporal-discounting is a curse! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference ). That's why Christianity promised after-life, because egocentrism is going to end us as species!

Then again, I am very likely to be dead within ten tears, almost certainly within twenty years. Is it short term thinking to try to live out those years rather than killing myself now since it's only "short term"? (Mind you, Henry and Nick would be pleased to see me safely buried six feet under).

Why do you and others seem to believe it's important to destroy all natural areas as quickly as possible? Why not try to slow the damage - to show some care and caution?

Why do you think the removal of ecosystems will help humanity survive long term? That is essentially what you are advocating in your disagreement; Henry and others and I have had this argument for a while. Embracing policies that rapidly destroy the environment will make long term survival of humanity (and other species) even less likely.

My view is simple. Slow down the damage - buy ourselves time before climate change becomes so extreme that we can't adjust any more.

[henry quirk]

"Then again, I am very likely to be dead within ten tears, almost certainly within twenty years."

I want you around a lot longer.

I want you to see colonies on the moon, mars, and beyond.

I want you eat with a fork and knife made from asteroid-sourced steel.

I want you to cry as Orions heave themselves up and out on ATOMIC FIRE.

I want you to eat your words and feel shame that you thought so little of man.

#

"we either get off the planet in data packets or not at all."

Dumb bunny: we've already gotten up and out, and for extended periods.

What we haven't done ourselves is get beyond the orbit of our satelite.

You've been proven WRONG

As for 'data packets': we'll be well-established in the belt before we (mebbe) understand how brain does mind, and we may never be able to record or replicate brain states with fidelity.

You wanna hobble human possibility (probability) in favor of transhuman fantasy.

[TimeSeeker]

"Then again, I am very likely to be dead within ten tears, almost certainly within twenty years."

I want you around a lot longer.

I want you to see colonies on the moon, mars, and beyond.

I want you eat with a fork and knife made from asteroid-sourced steel.

I want you to cry as Orions heave themselves up and out on ATOMIC FIRE.

I want you to eat your words and feel shame that you thought so little of man.

#

"we either get off the planet in data packets or not at all."

Dumb bunny: we've already gotten up and out, and for extended periods.

What we haven't done ourselves is get beyond the orbit of our satelite.

You've been proven WRONG

As for 'data packets': we'll be well-established in the belt before we (mebbe) understand how brain does mind, and we may never be able to record or replicate brain states with fidelity.

You wanna hobble human possibility (probability) in favor of transhuman fantasy.

You were right on every point - except your last paragraph. You (eventually) fell for temporal discounting.

Complexity is humanity’s No.1 enemy. It is David (humans) vs The Goliath (universe).

Time is not our friend! It is a variable we cannot control (because we don’t understand its ontology). We experience time as linear phenomenon while the universe “experiences” time as factorial complexity of quantum states.

We can get off this planet/solar system/galaxy and we are still losing the battle.

We need to control entropy/time. Which also means we need to prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong. Somehow!!!

My instincts (biases?) lead me to information theory. The only ‘antithesis’ to entropy we have right now.

If we are to ever enjoy travelling close to the speed of light (the current ‘ultimate’ limit) - we HAVE to become data packets. Or allow the digital mind we invent (AI) to carry the torch onwards...

There is, of course another option: we don’t go anywhere and we decide to spend our lives in virtual reality. Invented/accelerated time.

[Greta]

"Then again, I am very likely to be dead within ten tears, almost certainly within twenty years."

I want you around a lot longer.

I want you to see colonies on the moon, mars, and beyond.

I want you eat with a fork and knife made from asteroid-sourced steel.

I want you to cry as Orions heave themselves up and out on ATOMIC FIRE.

I want you to eat your words and feel shame that you thought so little of man.

Sorry champ. No chance - neither those kinds of events nor my longevity.

I never doubted asteroid mining. I think any colonies on those places would be sterile revolting cesspools of health and psychiatric problems, and they will neither be large nor substantial.

"we either get off the planet in data packets or not at all."

Dumb bunny: we've already gotten up and out, and for extended periods.

What we haven't done ourselves is get beyond the orbit of our satelite.

You've been proven WRONG

As for 'data packets': we'll be well-established in the belt before we (mebbe) understand how brain does mind, and we may never be able to record or replicate brain states with fidelity.

You wanna hobble human possibility (probability) in favor of transhuman fantasy.

I have not been proved wrong at all. How many people TRULY live in space? I am not talking about astronauts wrecking their health by spending a year on the ISS.

The idea of millions of people living on artificial environments on the Moon or Mars is simply ridiculous, not least because there is no advantage. If you are going to live in cramped, sterile, enclosed and protected housings from lethal outside environments, why not build them in the middle of the Saraha, Gobi, Atacama or Simpson Deserts? It would be more comfortable, freer and safer.

The only advantage of having a settlement on the Moon is the low gravity for space projects. The best I can see are small rotating communities as in the Antarctic, but mostly run by AI.

As for the "transhuman fantasy", I added "or not at all". It may well not be possible but it is the ONLY way humans in large numbers will leave Earth to live elsewhere. I note that, the use of genetic engineering and nanobots might assist astronauts (not civilians) to last longer in space than usual, but some might call that a transhuman fantasy too ...

[TimeSeeker]

I have not been proved wrong at all. How many people TRULY live in space? I am not talking about astronauts wrecking their health by spending a year on the ISS.

Even on a logarithmic scale ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel ) - infinitely more people TRULY live in space than have been TRULY digitized. Because zero people have been digitized. Despite your objections that Proof-of-concepts are meaningless - they are a step closer than imagination or theory.

Your logical fallacy is TRULY - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

The idea of millions of people living on artificial environments on the Moon or Mars is simply ridiculous, not least because there is no advantage. If you are going to live in cramped, sterile, enclosed and protected housings from lethal outside environments, why not build them in the middle of the Saraha, Gobi, Atacama or Simpson Deserts? It would be more comfortable, freer and safer.

It would be more comfortable AND freer. I am not sure about the "safer" bit. This is the same strategy the dinosaurs tried out (stay here). It was safer. Until it wasn’t.

The common goal is to avoid extinction. The advantage is continued human survival. If you don't recognize those criteria for (long-term!) success then there's really no point in further debate, is there?

Or as my unsophisticated grandmother used to say - never put all your eggs (humans) in one basket (planet).
You are so certain of your own positions, that you fail to take your own fellability into account. The universe has a harsh way with ignorance and folly.
Humanity matters far more than you and I.

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. --Mark Twain

[Greta]

I have not been proved wrong at all. How many people TRULY live in space? I am not talking about astronauts wrecking their health by spending a year on the ISS.

Even on a logarithmic scale ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel ) - infinitely more people TRULY live in space than have been TRULY digitized. Because zero people have been digitized. Despite your objections that Proof-of-concepts are meaningless - they are a step closer than imagination or theory.

Your logical fallacy is TRULY - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

I reject the criticism. "Truly" was shorthand for "living indefinitely". The astronaut who lived on ISS for just one year is a physical mess so this problem's solution is a long way off. Also the logistics of bringing large numbers of people is impossible, especially since their journey would be subsidised by those left on Earth, so there is also a serious political impediment to sending any but VIPs offworld, if they decide that living like a submariner on some godforsaken barren desert world is desirable.

I am unsure whether digitisation is possible too. Really, if I was a betting women my money would be on AI continuing the story elsewhere for us.

The idea of millions of people living on artificial environments on the Moon or Mars is simply ridiculous, not least because there is no advantage. If you are going to live in cramped, sterile, enclosed and protected housings from lethal outside environments, why not build them in the middle of the Saraha, Gobi, Atacama or Simpson Deserts? It would be more comfortable, freer and safer.

It would be more comfortable AND freer. I am not sure about the "safer" bit. This is the same strategy the dinosaurs tried out (stay here). It was safer. Until it wasn’t.

The common goal is to avoid extinction. The advantage is continued human survival. If you don't recognize those criteria for (long-term!) success then there's really no point in further debate, is there?

Or as my unsophisticated grandmother used to say - never put all your eggs (humans) in one basket (planet).
You are so certain of your own positions, that you fail to take your own fellability into account. The universe has a harsh way with ignorance and folly.
Humanity matters far more than you and I.

Okay, safer in some ways, more risky in others.

I agree with the attempts to move offworld to preserve and carry on whatever we can of this incredible story over the last four billion years, not just people. I think the clincher for me is that the Moon and Mars are simply awful. Each has superfine and highly dangerous dust that is seemingly impossible to keep out of spacecraft. The Moon's dust is configured as ultrafine shards of material that damages lungs while Mars's ultrafine and ultra dry dust is full of toxic and caustic perchlorates.

Then there's the gravity issue. Radiation. Temperatures. Dust storms. Meteors in the absence of a substantial atmosphere. Sanity. God knows what else. Then there's logistical, financial and political problem of sending the thousands of people needed to avoid inbreeding and allow of healthy genetic diversity in a space community.

As per the above, I suspect we will have to pass the baton to our creations to keep the flame alive.

[TimeSeeker]

I reject the criticism. "Truly" was shorthand for "living indefinitely". The astronaut who lived on ISS for just one year is a physical mess so this problem's solution is a long way off.

Relatively - which one do you think is "longer way off" solving the problems of well-being in space or digitising humans? Given our limited resources - we need to prioritize somehow. If you want to make an omelette you have to break some eggs. I am thankful and infinitely grateful to the astronaut for putting his ass on the line so we can learn from his suffering.

Also the logistics of bringing large numbers of people is impossible, especially since their journey would be subsidised by those left on Earth, so there is also a serious political impediment to sending any but VIPs offworld, if they decide that living like a submariner on some godforsaken barren desert world is desirable.

Transmission of large number of digitized humans is also going to be costly. Bandwidth too is a finite resource. Unless it violates the laws of physics - nothing is impossible. Only expensive. Until we make it cheaper with technology.

I am unsure whether digitisation is possible too. Really, if I was a betting women my money would be on AI continuing the story elsewhere for us.

And if we do succeed in digitising ourselves. We can continue our story - right here. In quantum computers. Experiencing time at a much faster rate than we do now.

And our creations could be our "remote hands".

Then there's the gravity issue. Radiation. Temperatures. Dust storms. Meteors in the absence of a substantial atmosphere. Sanity. God knows what else. Then there's logistical, financial and political problem of sending the thousands of people needed to avoid inbreeding and allow of healthy genetic diversity in a space community.

And those are all problems we will have to tackle. Either way we need a gradual progression towards success.

Frankly - as proof-of-concept I would like to see human survival-at-scale in less demanding terrains first. Everest. Underwater. The desert. There be social factors we haven't considered... And those are the hardest to solve!