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.

    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.

    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.

      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.

      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

        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.

        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

          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.

          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

          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.

          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

          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.

          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

          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.

          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

          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.

          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.

            Thank you for the compliments, and apologies for doing my usual "say what happens to pop into my head" thing regarding your presentation.

            Regarding Humanity 3.0, note the question mark in that section's title, and the multiple conditionals and branches in that part of the scenario. If I had to bet on whether human-like intelligence and consciousness are possible on non-organic substrates, I would say yes, for lack of any convincing counterargument. But something may yet come out of left field.

            Your suggestion of a mind which "shifts back and forth between biological and electronic" is curiously reminiscent of something an old friend suggested a few days ago, but I wouldn't know how to turn off the organic part and then back on (the main problem being the second step...). My own preferred scenario would be gradual substitution of organic circuits with artificial ones without ever interrupting or duplicating consciousness.

            If Humans 3.0 are possible, they would still not be a final goal, at least not in the form described. But I wouldn't worry about them taking over our world, for the same reason that I rarely get into fights with birds over who gets to eat a particularly juicy worm.

            Essentially, I don't expect Humans 1.0 to get much beyond Earth, or Humans 2.0 to get much beyond the solar system. Maybe the nearest stars, if they really push it. But a Human 3.0 could realistically aspire to go anywhere in the galaxy and beyond. Why bother with the very special niches required by organic life forms, if you can go to the galactic center and feast on energy densities which would kill them instantly? Let them eat their worms.

            If I must worry about takeovers, I would worry about Humans 2.0. They will still need relatively scarce water and carbon compounds, just like us, and they will be nearby. The day could come when they raise the question why Earth's inhabitants insist on making such poor use of their most valuable natural resources. Some 98% of my body mass is pure animal. If we insist on staying like this, we may eventually have to produce credible deterrence against our neighbours in space.

            As for market testing, I think we are seeing the results already, at least as far as FQXi is concerned: a nanny-state dystopia might be acceptable, but dropping the Cro-Magnon body is so completely out of the question that it doesn't even deserve to be rated. :D