Dear Mr. Fisher,

If the "protective sheath" to which you are referring is the ozone layer in our upper atmosphere, then there seems to be very little work done showing that any rocket propellants other than "solid-fuels" could cause a negative impact on the atmosphere's UV protection characteristics (see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090414-rockets-ozone.html). More work does need to be done to address fuel-environment impacts. But stopping altogether would be quite impossible, and sending humans to settle Mars, a few launches every few years (orbital alignments) would not significantly impact our environment when compared to telecommunication, weather and military satellite launches rates.

As to the cause of global-warming, I do not believe that there is a single source, nature provides ample variations, but human behavior and fossil fuel use has contributed significantly (and continues). I would suggest we all stop driving cars before we stop launching into space.

Bottom line, if we want to survive, we need to diversify off Earth.

Hi Ross,

I concur. Any place that humans go other humans will be able to enact horrible actions upon them if desired. This has been the case throughout human existence. Humans are just extremely good at it now and the scales involved can be enormous. The benefit of being 6 months away on Mars, might mean that it would be difficult to initiate a sneak attack on a Mars settlement; and it would be very sad indeed if as a species, the first settlers would need to monitor the home world for such a negative threat. Human behavior, conflict and social issues aside, because these are ongoing, if we want to survive, we need to diversify off Earth.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #11

Dear Donald Barker,

You wrote an awesome essay!

I really liked your analogy with the Titan lander; it fits perfectly with Earth's current situation. You fleshed out in detail why we must become a multi-world species (one of the imperatives that I covered only briefly in my essay Three Crucial Technologies ). Why the vital importance of our diversification off of Earth isn't obvious to everyone is beyond me.

Your discussion with James Dunn about the respective merits of Mars and Venus is very interesting. In the near term; i.e. our current technological and economic conditions, Mars is the better choice, though the chances of success will increase if we first test many of the technologies and processes on the Moon (which has it's own advantages, most notably that it's only three days away if something goes wrong). Did you have a good reason for ignoring O'Neill colonies? They have their own set of attractive characteristics, such as control over gravity, length of day, and location.

Moore's Law (and more generally Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns) predict fairly reliably that our level of technological development will continue to increase. This progress is the most important in the form of Molecular Manufacturing, which will enable significantly better and cheaper spacecraft. Nanotechnology is not magic -- there are plenty of things it can't do; but it makes our global warming problems irrelevant (see The Politics and Ethics of the Hall Weather Machine ), and terraforming possible within two decades (see The Drexlerian Terraformation of Mars ).

NASA has done a great job, and I too lament the budget cuts it has suffered for the past decades. But keep in mind that it is a government agency with many of the inherent inefficiencies of government. I'm hopeful that the privatization of space will enable a space-faring civilization, especially if we figure out which organizational system works best for which task. Ultimately, Mars (and Venus, and the rest of the Solar System) will be settled because it is economically worthwhile; otherwise the only people who will make the investment will do so for religious reasons (e.g. Pilgrims and Mormons), and even then the cost needs to low enough that any upper-middle class family can afford it by selling their homes and businesses.

You did touch on another problem that we face--that we often make choices based on hate and fear (probably greed, too), but unfortunately you didn't offer any solution. It appears that Semantic Web techniques may offer machine assistance in helping us think better, and maybe get us a step closer to wisdom.

    That was my post, BTW; FQXi logs you out if you type too slow (but doesn't tell you). It's a feature (a back door for allowing anonymous entries), not a bug! :-)

    Donald, I think you might enjoy my essay, Planetary Procreation. :-) It looks to me like your wish will be granted, since we appear to be evolutionarily programmed to expand life outward and upward, whenever possible...

    4 days later

    P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

    10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

    9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

    8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

    7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

    6 - slightly favorable indifference

    5 - unfavorable indifference

    4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

    3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

    2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

    1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

    After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

    The following is a general observation:

    Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

    Aaron,

    I like that you have addressed some of the problems associated with the rating of people associated with a given process, i.e., usually biased. I have read a few other submissions and have rated even fewer because I prefer leaving the judging up to judges or impartial public readers (if possible). I would change one thing on your ranking comment to make it more objective. You cant use interesting vs boring or how much one learned, as those are completely subjective. You can only judge on how relevant the manuscript is to the top at hand to make it little less subjective.

    I will read your submission but don't promise that I will rate it.

    Cheers,

    Don

    Donald,

    Your emphasis on " diversification off-Earth" is one of many options, indeed. The case you make for it is strong.

    A question: You say that "life on Earth has solely been at the mercy of natural events." Wouldn't life on Titan or Mars be at the mercy of natural events in the same manner?

    I look as the doom and gloom scenarios and get a lot of comfort from three facts:

    - First, that nature's time-frames are enormously large from human time-frames: a century is nothing in nature's timeline but it is 5-6 generations in human terms.

    - Second, the amount of transition we make and knowledge about nature we gather per generation gives me solace that we can tackle any problem. You seem to agree when you say "capabilities, from fashioning flints to rocket engines that will potentially prove our salvation."

    - Third, I have spent the better part of two years trying to understand the public's "belief in science." The issue, I am learning, is not that the public believes less in science, but that the conflicts between scientists on what science tells us is what's confusing the public.

    Good essay.

    - Ajay

      Hi Donald,

      Great essay! You offer good arguments supporting your views about the future of humanity and space technology. I enjoyed reading your essay very much, especially "Why is settling Mars the Answer?". I agree with you that technology has great impact on humanity's present, and through science and technology we can make a better future, whether on earth or in space. This is in agreement with my essay: Improving Science for a Better Future, I'd be glad to take your opinion.

      Good luck in the contest, and best regards,

      Mohammed

        Hi Ajay,

        Thanks for the review. To hopefully can answer your questions simply and in order >>

        1) Yes, everything is at the mercy of nature, always. And all life on Earth would probably be gone during any of the 5 great mass extinctions had it not been diversified in all habitats it could cling to around the planet. Those species not well diversified, spread out, probably went extinct. But until now, no other species was cognitively and technically capable of goal oriented diversification with an understanding of what nature is capable of doing.

        2) We can tackle the problem as long as man made and natural threats occur sporadically. But when several things occur in close succession, then recovery may be impossible or take a very long time. Europe and much of the world regressed for hundreds of years following the Black Death, and we are still recovering from all the ill effects and waste that occurred from the wars of the last century, ect.

        3) Our culture is so mired in "instant gratification" (also attributed to our technology) and too many distractions that most people do not want to take the time to actually learn difficult topics like the sciences. And I agree, bad communication, presentation skills and lack of funding all contribute to general public disinterest and inattention.

        Thanks Mohammed,

        I look forward to reading yours as well.

        Ideally yes, technology and the expansion of humans to Mars (as rapidly as possible) will positively impact our species, but neither will guarantee a better future for humanity because humans are still in the equation. Until we as a species are miraculously able to control our animalistic and egocentric components and focus on building rather then destroying, then I see the pendulum as always hitting one extreme and the next, as it always has done.

        But when taking all probabilities of threats to our very survival into account, our time is now to take action to heighten our chances of long term survival. Heck, the Dinosaurs got really luck with a 150 million years here, yet they were not a threat to themselves.

        Don

        8 days later

        Donald,

        Does your push for Mars indicate giving up on Earth's prospects or is it only a backup? New developments, including the plasma engine, gives us several months round-trip access rather than several years, though I gather your concept is long-term and self-sufficient with an eye toward terraforming.

        My essay speaks of "looking beyond" in terms of beyond Earth and beyond the conventional and "looking within" to harness the untapped potential of the human brain, which many see as the microcosm of the universe.

        I would like to see your comments.

        Jim

          Jim, thanks for the comment, and I hope this reply suffices.

          First, given all the potential threats to our existence combined with the fact that all our proverbial "eggs are in one basket," and if we really want to up the odds of survival of an Earth derived species, then we need to branch out as soon as possible. Humans have been working on problems here as long as we have been social creatures and will hopefully continue to do so; but you can see where that has got us thus far.

          As for the technology involved, i.e., propulsion and energy systems, we have ample ability now to begin this branching out. Remember, Columbus did not wait for the development of the steam engine to discover the "New World" and just because its dangerous or difficult we should not wait to begin our settling of Mars.

          I look forward to reading your paper also.

          Cheers,

          Don

          You make a compelling case for settling Mars, Don. I like the analogy to the short-lived Huygens probe. I completely agree with you--my essay covers some similar ground--that we can't keep all of our eggs in the single basket of Earth indefinitely. A Mars mission is feasible and has the potential to be transformative. Good luck in the contest--you deserve to do well.

          Best,

          Robert de Neufville

            Thanks for the comment CaoHoàng.

            Yes, I truly believe that if we as a species are to survive, even the short term, i.e., the next couple hundred years, we need to get a presence firmly established on Mars as soon as possible. Statistically, we are overdue for one of several very bad disasters. And in doing so, we could positively inspire Earth. And one series of closely spaced marginally bad (expensive) events will delay such ventures another 30 to 50 years; as has been shown for the last 40 years.

            As for other eligible destinations or planets, I don't really think so. Nothing as simple as Mars. Nothing with the resources readily available as Mars. There are other very interesting places to go, but that will be more for pure scientific exploration - in the very near future.

            Cheers,

            Don

            Dear Robert,

            Thanks you. I hoped to make it at least somewhat interesting, at least from a writing/reading perspective.

            As for the case, I just don't understand why more people don't see this as an undertaking that we need to start immediately. I liken it to the destruction of the Minoan culture on Crete from the tsunami from Santorini. They had a great navy and command of the sea, but they never, as far as I can tell, settled or colonized any other location that preserved their culture; though they may have influenced many others. Such a loss. I guess history is not a popular topic to most people. Humans seem to like taking two steps forward and 1.5 backwards.

            I will check your essay out soon.

            Good luck,

            Don

            Donald,

            Thank you for an interesting and well-researched essay. I particularly liked your analysis of what would have happened if NASA's budget hadn't been cut after the initial investment in the Apollo Missions.

            I hope your essay makes it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. Good luck!

            Marc

            5 days later

            Donald,

            Certainly Mars is attainable, especially with a promising development of a plasma engine which supposedly could get us there and back in months rather than years. I assume you are suggesting terraforming of Mars to make it livable. You cite the foolish use of resources we are currently engaged in. Perhaps that is biggest challenge for our future. How we break short-term agendas to seriously pursue a viable future.

            My essay too tries to deal with this short-sightedness with a solution of looking beyond the orthodox science and within the neural universe of the mind. I would like to see your thoughts on my essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

            Good marks.

            Jim

              Donald

              Great essay, very interesting read but I didn't need selling on you fundamental hypothesis. My concern is that the current 'rut' our understanding of nature is stuck in may mean we'll never win the multi planet race. I address that but from the reaction of many it seems it may already be too late. I also suspect we may anyway need to go further afield to find long term sustainable environments. Very well presented and argued anyway.

              Best wishes

              Peter