A Future Brighter than 100 Trillion Suns by Tommy Anderberg

Tommy Anderberg

Essay Abstract

I discuss how humanity may enhance its capabilities and expand in space to eventually spread beyond the Milky Way.

Author Bio

I am a guy who wonders how the world works.

James Dunn

Mars is not the closest match to Earth within reach, Venus is. Venus is 90% of the mass of Earth and can hold an atmospheric pressure that can support human life after terra-forming the atmosphere.

Mars has 38% of the gravity of Earth and will never be able to support the atmospheric pressure needed to sustain human life. The current atmosphere on Mars is like living at 125,000 feet above sea level here on Earth. We will be required to live in pressurized cavern to sustain life. So why not just live in ventilated caverns here on Earth?

Venus however can have its' atmosphere terra-formed from space. Let me know if you want references. And the same technology can provide both active Weather Control for Venus and Earth. The same structures can be used for solar sails to transfer people and resources between the inner planets and provide maintenance transport. All without fossil fuels.

Catalysts and energy differentials of the Venus atmosphere can convert the CO2 to oxygen and hydrocarbons. The atmospheres of both Mars and Venus are 97% CO2, but Venus has more atmospheric components to sustain catalyst based conversions.

Indeed, the current egoists want an easy visible target that has PR appeal, but has no significant return on investment.

Tommy Anderberg

Hi. A fair point, Venus could be terraformed (I remember Sagan's "fried algae", and one need look no further than Wikipedia for a bunch of other proposals) but currently, it is even less survivable than Mars. Put a guy in a standard issue NASA spacesuit on Mars, and he'll live. Do the same on Venus, and it's an imploding-melting-burning horror show.

Donald Barker

Hi Tommy,

FYI, Mr. Dunn wrote almost the same thing on my essay page. I still have to hold to the point that we really need to diversify our species off Earth (i.e., Mars) before something bad happens, and we dont own the casino we just play the game. Nice essay though and I agree, we have a lot of necessary Tech to develop if things are to go smoothly.

Cheers.

Tommy Anderberg

I think we are on the same page regarding the need to diversify, we just advocate different tactics to achieve that goal. The choice probably won't matter much for another couple of decades, since the technological advances specific to my scenario are initially going to be driven by other concerns, and the heavy lift and other space capabilities needed for Mars missions will be useful either way. I'll start worrying the day I see a reckless Mars mission with a high probability of failure diverting large resources and/or risking to provoke a public backlash against space in general.

Michael Allan

Hello Tommy, May I offer a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I would ask you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike

Tommy Anderberg

Hi. I'm trying my best to read at least every abstract, to read the essay when the abstract catches my attention, and to leave a comment if one happens to pop into my head. It's a big avalanche to dig through, and I'm way behind, but sooner or later I should get through it. No need for a formal agreement, I'm an equal opportunity commenter.

Michael Allan

Thank you, (That's not a bad policy, either.) Your essay has an inviting, exploratory style that's never dull. You argue for the need to expand into the galaxy. By laying down an incisive examination of the problems and solutions to that end, you build up a proposal for an economically sustained, virtual transhumanism as the means - a brave thesis, if not a rash one.

I have a few questions, please. First about the Lagrangians who export energy and (perhaps) moon minerals to earth. "Eventually", you claim, "they could spread throughout the solar system." (p. 2) In spreading just to the vicinity of Mars, what economic basis would they obtain for this venture that the unsustainable Mars colonies (pp. 1-2) could not obtain? - Mike

Tommy Anderberg

That's a trick question, right? :) The natural front of expansion for O'Neill-style settlements would be into the asteroid belt, not Mars. Off the top of my head, the businesses I can think of would be mining (with related refining and manufacturing) and real estate.

The asteroid belt is like a planet which has already been ground down by a giant mining machine and laid out for us to pick and choose from with minimal mechanical effort, and without a gravity well to lift out the ore from. Initially, miners will operate from Earth, but a look at this is enough to see why they will eventually want to move out. Sooner or later, any Mars settlers would also have to mine for their own needs, but they would have to work much harder to find and extract what they want, and they would have to pay the gravity well tax in order to export anything.

Real estate would follow in the miner's trail and work pretty much as usual: a developer would build a habitat and then sell or rent units. The buyers would be very different from the rugged pioneer types you would expect to see in a Mars settlement; think "Elysium", or luxury sea residence / cruise ship like The World. People would move there to live better, not worse. I wouldn't be interested in a lot on Mars, but if I had the money, I wouldn't disdain living on (or rather in) something like Island One.

If I really must think of a way to drag Mars into this, it would be because of its water. I suppose, without any attempt at actual analysis, that it might make sense to "mine" Mars' polar caps for ice and blast it to habitats in the asteroid belt. Going around the sun a little faster than its customers, it would be like the solar system's own ice van. Mars colonists would probably hate the idea with a vengeance.

Michael Allan

Good, that makes sense. Now about "the Matrix", a new concept for me (no tricks, just learning by asking). The core of the plan is to sell entrance tickets to a semi-virtual, transhuman "utopia" of space colonization (S), then use the revenue to finance S in reality? Do I understand? - Mike

Tommy Anderberg

The Matrix would be central to the real thing.

Let me tell you about my body. It is optimized to run around on savannas, hunt mastodons and defend home caves from sabre-tooth cats and bears. If it were designed for the way I actually use it, it would consist of a life support system dimensioned to serve just the brain plus a standardized interface for connecting to external devices (computers, actuators etc). It would consume far less energy, occupy a smaller volume and weigh a small fraction of the stone-age version, and would therefore cost much less to carry into space and keep alive there.

If I had such a body, I would be the most cost-efficient astronaut ever, except for one small detail: I would flunk every psychological test, because my mind is of the stone-age variety too and wouldn't be happy living in that kind of body.

We could wait a few million years for evolution to fix that, but the Matrix promises a quicker route: a simulated body and environment tailored to our stone-age tastes. Instead of a city-sized physical structure for stone-age bodies, modern-bodied astronauts would have a server running a virtual world to keep them happy. The experience would be better and the cost lower. Low enough, I hope, to completely change the economics of space settlement and exploration.

Michael Allan

Sure, I understand that much. But the economics is central to your thesis, so I want to understand that, too: 1) we sell entrance tickets to a "simulated body and environment" suitable for astronauts; then 2) we use the revenue to finance exploration (largely by these semi-transhuman astronauts) of the real, non-simulatated environment of space. Is that correct? - Mike

Tommy Anderberg

That would be part of the mixed business model which I mention on page 3. All the commercial activities contemplated for O'Neill-style space habitats would still be on the plate. The mechanical work was always going to be done by machines anyway; it's not like suited-up 1.0 astronauts would have been assembling habitats by hand or swinging pick-axes on asteroids. They would have been controlling robotic arms and excavators. Same thing with 2.0s, just much cheaper.

Michael Allan

That makes sense. Your essay improves as I read your comments, here and elsewhere. It's now one of the most interesting I've read. But I begin to see a tension between the virtual and real worlds. "Life in the [virtual world of] the Matrix could be literally anything you imagine." (p. 4)

Except it cannot be authentic. The virtual cannot be real. Priceless reality can only be attained by escaping the virtual sham. You do speak of Matrix-ians experiencing reality (pp. 3-4). Your thesis depends on them successfully exploring and colonizing the real galaxy, then living in that reality (just as colonists always do, I would add). So why not offer (or sell) just that?

After all, the facility to fantasize (where wanted) is already a part of reality. It comes with the territory. This goes without saying. But we wouldn't deliberately build the equivalent of opium dens (if that's not too strong a metaphor) into our colony ships, ports, towns, etc. - Mike

Tommy Anderberg

Where do you draw the line between real and virtual? As I write this I am surrounded by a completely man-made environment, a building in a town, and I am focusing on a computer screen. It's all artificial. If I were experiencing the same environment in a computer simulation, I suppose you could claim that it is "even more artificial", but the distinction would make little sense to me. I would experiencing the same thing - or probably something more pleasant, since it would be so much easier to modify at my whim. I could be sitting on a sandy beach, dipping my toes in the ocean while dictating these words and watching them appear on a screen floating in front of me. Maybe throw in a nice sunset while I'm at it. :)

The primary reason for "selling" the Matrix is, again, cost. Our big, bulky bodies are not built for space, they are terribly expensive to get out there and terribly expensive to keep alive. The immense difficulty of colonizing Mars or building O'Neill-style habitats all comes down to that. Get rid of the Cro-Magnon body and the cost problem is solved. Do it in a way which keeps the brain happy, and you'll find plenty of volunteers.

The Matrix would not be an "opium den". It would be the house and the town. If I were in it now, enjoying the sunset over the ocean while dictating these words, I might decide to take a break from this task and check on progress in the physical world. At my command, the screen floating in front of me would expand and deepen to a box containing a 3D display produced by real stereo cameras. Flicking through multiple views from different locations, one might catch my attention. A new command would cause the box in front of me to expand further, taking over my entire field of view. Engaging motor control, my limbs would be mapped to the machine's actuators, and I would be fully immersed in the physical world. Maybe we'll call it Augmented Virtuality.

Michael Allan

I think that line is already drawn for us by the definition of "virtual". It means not physically existing as such, but made to appear so (Oxford dictionary). So it's not a question of artificial vs. natural. The English castle inhabited by Stanley Kubrik was artificially constructed but nevertheless real, while the fairy-tale castles offered in your Matrix are virtual and thus unreal.

Nor is it a question of retaining vs. shedding the "Cro-Magnon body". An artificial body can still experience reality, which is mostly what matters when it comes to exploring real space. Here the virtual hardly matters at all. Any human (0.3 - 3.0 and beyond) can experience the virtual when there's a personal need for it. This goes without saying. But the systematic provision of self-indulgent fantasies is likely to prove counter-productive when promoted as part and parcel of the real business of exploring and colonizing space. Do you see what I mean?

Tommy Anderberg

You raise multiple objections. Let's disentangle them:

1) Things which exist physically are real, things which do not exist physically are "virtual and thus unreal".

2) In your previous comment you used the words "priceless reality" and "virtual sham". You also compared virtual reality to fantasizing and to "opium dens". I take this to indicate a strong rejection on your part of any experience that is not physical.

3) You point out that experiencing reality "is mostly what matters when it comes to exploring real space".

4) You claim that an artificial body can do the job without virtual reality.

5) You fear that being able to experience what you want in virtual reality will reduce interest in going out and experiencing and colonizing space.

My responses follow separately, since we seem to have hit some post length limit here. :/

Tommy Anderberg

1) I guess you are not big on philosophy. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but you should at least be aware that you are implicitly endorsing a particular philosophical position, and that others exist. Plato might ask why you confer greater reality to the imperfect physical world than to the digital one. I will more modestly point out three things:

1a) Objects created in a virtual world have a physical basis too. With enough work, I could point out exactly which circuits and memory cells are used to store the properties of any such object. Those are made of atoms, just like the things you consider more real. You could counter that those atoms don't matter much, since they will be swapped out as the virtual object is moved around in memory; I would counter that the atoms which make up your own body don't matter much either, since they are continuously being swapped out too by your breathing, eating etc. What makes you you is an information pattern, not the particular atoms currently used to store it.

1b) You do not experience physical reality. No, you really don't. What you experience is an internal model maintained by unconscious parts of your brain, puzzled together from inputs provided by your sensory organs; your own biologically generated virtual world, if you will. Cognitive scientists have fun ways to punch holes in the illusion that you are perceiving things as they are, like various optical illusions. You could also ask yourself if the basic building blocks of your experience of physical reality, such as "color", really make sense outside your mind. Sure, a color usually (see that color illusion) corresponds to some set of wavelengths, but your perception of it is an enconding which only exists inside your head, and quite possibly differs from my or somebody else's encoding of the same set of wavelengths.

1c) You seem to be taking for granted that the physical world is not itself a simulation.

As an aside, the first version of my essay included a comic chosen specifically to remind readers of all this. Unfortunately I had to remove it after the organizers got nervous about potential licensing issues. :(

Tommy Anderberg

2) I suppose your strongly value-laden choice of words reflects some sort of personal aversion to... actually, I am not sure to what. Right now you are participating in a discussion on a virtual forum which only exists in a computer somewhere, quite possibly (I'm too lazy to check) on a virtual machine spun out to one or more physical machines as the need arises. Is this discussion we are having a "virtual sham" and not really happening, since we are not having it by old-fashioned paper mail? Or would it really need to be carried out in person, using (instantly dispersed) sound waves to count as part of "priceless reality"? How about by phone? There would still be sound waves involved, but along the way they would be converted to analog electric signals, then to digital ones, then to light pulses carried by optical fibers, and then back again by the inverse chain. Would that discussion be made less real by transiting through the digital realm?

Again, my view is that the information pattern is what counts, not the particular substrate currently being used to carry it.

Tommy Anderberg

3) If your purpose is exploration, you obviously need to go get the data. Of course, you will generally want to use better sensors than the very limited ones which come with a natural human body, and we already do. But maybe you mean something else; maybe you mean to say that the purpose of venturing into space is something like tourism, to experience the thing firsthand, with your own senses. If so, I am afraid your experience will be a very brief one: pick any currently known destination, and it will be over in less than twenty seconds. That's being optimistic, assuming that you just wanted to experience vacuum. The most physical and survivable experience you could have is the inside of a space suit. The sound would be that of your own body, mainly your breathing and pulse, and of your comm radio. The sight would be what you can expect through a thick visor plus a head-mounted display. Your skin and muscles would mostly be complaining about how surprisingly laborious it is to move inside one of those things. If you have any sense, you will prefer to stay in your shirt sleeves, inside a cozy cabin, and interact with what's outside through machines.

Having said all that, the primary purpose of the expansion into space which I and others have written about would not be exploration. The primary purpose would be economic and ultimately existential, i.e. to ensure our long-term survival. Exploration would be a necessity, just like oil prospecting is a necessity for oil companies and (currently) to keep our technological infrastructure running.

Tommy Anderberg

4) Artificial bodies capable of satisfactorily replacing ours are both harder to create and less desirable than the Matrix. They are harder to make because they require the same life support system and BCI, plus a mechanical body (with associated control and sensor systems) capable of powering and carrying them around within the size constraints of a human body, and good enough to match the performance of a natural one. That's a very tall order; I would definitely not be happy with a half-measure like Robocop's body. They are less desirable, because such a body will be at least as bulky as a natural one, probably heavier (so no gain for space), and less secure, less versatile and consequently more expensive than the Matrix.

The Matrix will be created first simply because it's easier, and for reasons which initially will have nothing to do with space. It will then dawn on its creators and residents that the separation of psychological requirements (satisfied by a virtual body in a simulated world) from physical infrastructure allows optimization of the latter for the task at hand. I remind you again that space is not what our bodies are built for. A mechanical body built specifically for space exploration and exploitation would not look like a human being; it would look like a space probe. You could put a human brain in such a body, but that brain would go nuts. The same brain will be quite happy living in a familiar-looking, simulated body, and working a job using whichever hardware device its current task in the physical world happens to call for. It's the difference between driving an excavator and being turned into one.

In case you wonder about the "less secure" and "less versatile" part, it comes down to the same reason we have data centers now: resource sharing. Put a bunch of brains in a common data center, and they can share common shielding, power and life support systems more robust and with more built-in redundance than what would fit in a human-sized body. They can also share physical devices instead of having a full set each; assign them to three 8-hour shifts, and even if everybody needs to use the same kind of device, there need only be 1/3 the number you would need if everybody was soldered into one. And it will always be safer to control a big heavy machine doing mechanical work from some distance, rather than being right next to (or inside) it.

Tommy Anderberg

5) Your final objection is analogous to saying that people should not have nice houses, because if they did, they would no longer be interested in going outside. Maybe there is some truth to that, but it turns out that getting and keeping those nice houses requires money, which is typically obtained by getting out the door and/or interacting with others through electronic communication networks (you know, virtually). I guess this objection is related to number (3), i.e. the idea that experience-seeking exploration is the main purpose of expanding into space. But it won't be. Space will be where the residents of the Matrix go to work.

Michael Allan

Well, now we misunderstand each other completely. I pressed my point too hard. Here it is plainly: your essay would be stronger if you dropped the virtual reality.

Not that I'd characterize your essay as weak. I now think it both brave and rash.

Tommy Anderberg

How do you propose to keep a disembodied brain happy without virtual reality?

Michael Allan

I picture remote sensors, motor functions and such (call it "remote reality"). You briefly touched on something like this in your essay, but I think it deserves more attention than virtual reality. Not only is it more practical in the general scheme of things (e.g. for space exploration), but more likely to be valued by the "disembodied" person himself (or herself), who's no longer actually disembodied in this case, but rather separate from his body (or "bodies", as there may be many).

I guess I should have spoken for the positive side of the coin right from the beginning. I once made the mistake (in my own work) of attempting to build a whole theory on top of negatives. It failed miserably (I present the positive alternative in my own essay), so I should have learned my lesson by now. - Mike

Tommy Anderberg

I did not "briefly touch" on access to the physical world, I identified it as a key issue, and explained why.

I have also repeatedly explained in this discussion why virtual reality is a key element to Humanity 2.0. Go back to post #7 in this thread and you can see yourself saying "Sure, I understand that much". Yet you keep coming back to this point. We are going around in circles here. :(

Michael Allan

Yes, you think virtual reality necessary to "keep them happy". Yes, I understand.

No, I don't agree. I suggest you drop the virtual reality. Your essay would be stronger.

Anyway, I must sign off now. I can be reached through my own forum. - Mike

Tommy Anderberg

If I were to drop virtual reality, I would have to give everybody a human-like robot body. It would have similar mass (larger, I would guess), similar volume, and similar requirements on living space, again leading to city-sized habitats. The order-of-magnitude cost reduction of Humanity 2.0 would therefore be lost, as would the greater adaptability allowed by the separation of concerns between virtual reality (for living) and physical reality (for work involving physical manipulation). So no, dropping virtual reality would not make the essay stronger. Quite the contrary.

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Anderberg,

I thought that your essay was exceptionally well written and the graphics were out of this world. I do hope that it scores well in the competition.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Tommy Anderberg

Thank you for the kind words. Out of this world - exactly. :)

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi

Dear Tommy,

I was really impressed by the imagination and out-of-the box thinking that went into this essay. I'm not sure everyone will be enthusiastic about the ideas you present but they are certainly different, and therefore they enrich the discussion. Your progression to Humanity 3.0 reminded me of Asimov's "Last Question".

I liked the fact that in the conclusion you went from the rather heady images of the far future to concrete steps that can be taken now. A vision without a plan is condemned to remain a dream.

Best wishes,

Armin

Tommy Anderberg

Thank you. I wrote this expecting most readers to be appalled (and the score so far seems to confirm my expectation :D ). If somebody were to offer me brain-in-vatification today, I would be horrified too, even if the technology already existed. Absurdly oversized as my Cro-Magnon body is for the actual use I make of it (built to hunt Mammuts, used to push buttons...) it is still holding up too well to warrant extraction. But barring some really surprising developments over the next few decades, I know it won't last. By the time Kurzweil et al. expect the Singularity to happen, I'll be taunting them from a precariously fragile platform (if at all). At that point, even a very risky experimental procedure involving partial loss of sensory input and motor control might look better than the alternative. "Would you rather be dead?" tends to be a pretty convincing argument.

I didn't think specifically of "The Last Question", but now that you mention it, it is a very good comparison; I was trying to evoke the same feeling which characterized some of the best SciFi from Clarke's and Asimov's era, of a future so vast and holding so many possibilities that we can't even begin to wrap our heads around it. Basically I wanted to see how shamefully optimistic I could be without breaking any known laws of nature. Turns out, there is plenty of room for optimism. :)

(That said, I think Asimov cheated badly by putting his "AC" in a "hyperspace" where it could keep thinking indefinitely, apparently unaffected by the very entropy problem at the core of his story. If he had thought of virtual worlds, he could just have let everybody immigrate into one running on the AC, and forgotten all about our dusty old universe with its bothersome physical limitations.)

By the way, I think your essay made a very good point. Personally, I chose to interpret this year's question as apolitically as possibly, and just point to what "we" (nerds, humanity...) should do to open access to desirable future opportunities. If some self-appointed "elite" were to claim actual ability or prerogative to "steer" humanity, I would probably laugh my head off.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Tommy,

yes it is horrific and not the way I would like humanity to go. Having said that it was a very novel vision of the future and an enjoyable read.Very well thought out. I like that you have discussed problems with the scenarios as well as the advantages.

Good luck, Georgina

Tommy Anderberg

Well, you know: "Adapt to the environment. Do not cause more problems than you solve. (Bend like the willow.)" ;)

You have Kevin Costner's gilled descendants swimming around sub-aquatic sanctuaries, I have The Matrix... in Space! Maybe not all that different.

Thanks, and good luck to you too.

James Blodgett

I like your essay, and I like your writing. I also like your 2012 FGXi essay on physics, and I like your comments on Michael Allen's paper.

Michael offered me his deal where each rates the other fairly. Would you want to make that deal with me too? I am more interested in your comments on my essay than in your rating, since I don't expect to win this contest. I tried for coach-before-the-big-game inspiration of readers, but it is hard to do that when the odds of individual effectuality seem low. I sense that inspiration should be possible here, so I want to keep optimizing my presentation. I think your feedback would help. I am asking others too. If the feedback and folk's interest warrant, we could all be coauthors. Maybe we could inspire others to save the world.

My one quibble with your paper is Humanity 3 as a goal. My feeling is maybe. We have personal "I think, therefore I am" evidence that our current biological brain configuration has something like a conscious soul. IBM's Watson is smarter than humans on tricky jeopardy questions, but is it conscious? Could a future model be designed to be conscious? I conjecture that we can never be sure of the answer, but I can imagine experiments that would be suggestive of an answer. One is a Turing/Freud test, psychoanalyzing an AI. Another is an implementation of our mind that shifts back and forth between biological and electronic, so we can compare and critique the feeling of both (if this is possible). We can never be sure, but given continued progress we will be forced to decide on what to do about the issue, since "not to decide is to decide not to decide." My quibble is that I think it is too soon to set Humanity 3 as a goal. I think we should wait for the results of those kinds of experiments and have that kind of experience. If we are forced to fudge the decision, we should at least do the best we can. We also have to deal with the "take over the world" problem, which also exists with current humans (like Hitler), and the Yudkowsky "foom" problem, along with his questionably implementable "proof of friendliness" solution. I think we will have to fudge that one too. I agree with Shirazi that Humanity 3 has the blow-us-away expansiveness of Asimov's "Last Question." I wouldn't want to tell you not to invoke that. I would just like to see a caveat or two. Your benevolent matrix doesn't raise these questions for me since you propose using biological human brains. If you are going for inspiration, you should market test to see if it raises those problems for others. I disagree with Socrates, I think rhetoric is appropriate when the goal is saving the world. It won't work unless we inspire others to get on board.

Tommy Anderberg

Of course, I just had to post my reply in the wrong place. Please see post below yours. Sorry. :/