Author
|
Topic: Earth-like planets raise prospects of extra-terrestial life (Read 23778 times)
|
|
|
Valaggar Redux
Guest
|
Maybe they can just lower their population growth when the sun is nearing to death. So that the planet isn't anymore inhabited when the sun goes bye-bye (or rather, hi-hi).
Er...yes. I'm sure they'll feel better about sending zygotes out if they voluntarily go extinct rather than get wiped out by their sun exploding. Voluntary death is so much nicer.
Well, it's better than turning into flaming carbon bits. And they have nothing better to do, save for using von Neumann miners to turn all asteroids in their system into ships. Suns going (super)nova aren't good enough reason not to colonize planets -- it only happens once in a lot of billions of years, after all. And the benefits of colonizing planets are enormous.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dancing Fungus
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 150
Armor always looks cool with extra techno...right?
|
You don't lug it with you any more than the rest of the fleet. You launch together and all go in the same direction. It's not like the factory will have to taker a detour along the way and get lost, they'd all be travelling with the same velocity. And what kind of loss is this anyhow? An entire civilisation (say, he population of Earth or maybe a bit less) have launched themselves into space along with all the infrastructure needed to support them and enough pieces of rock to replace any raw material losses they might have for the next 5000 years.. They aren't going to lose their only can opener on the way.
My point isn't that it would be lost as in "it just floated off", but rather as in that it would be destroyed, damaged, would have crashed into something, lost life support, etc. while with the rest of the fleet.
Also, if you can afford to launch your/an entire infrastructure into space, I don't think anything is going wrong anytime soon and there probably is nothing beyond your reach.
Oh and I'm not talking about can openers. I'm talking about some kind of specialized gadget that is really hard to make and has some more important function [assuming that you need one]. And obviously they would bring spares if they could. But unless your colonists can see into the future, I don't understand how you could possibly plan out exactly what you will need for the next thousand years. Most things you could probably fix or build, but there are other things that you can't make.
Not if you launch them out of the system into the void between the stars It's a very big place, and the odds are very much better that you won't meet anyone. Put it like this. If you live in a city, where do you meet the least people? A) in the city centre. B) in your car out in the suburbs or C) out in the wilderness where you drove your car?
So now we're talking about shoving asteroids around the Universe. So you float off into deep space with asteroid homes and sit around. Big deal. I doubt enough other asteroids will just happen to float by that you could just sit there indefinitely.
If you ahev the technology to pump out loads of ships and colonists, I doubt it's going to be that more cost efficient to launch a small splinter civilisation with better chances of survival every 50 years than it's going to be to launch new colony ships every year and hope they don't break, run out of tools, die of infighting, meet hostiles etc.
Actually, it would be much more efficient. Think of it this way. At this moment in time, the human race possesses primitive space flight. We have lots of people crowding the planet. We are currently exploring the possibility of terraforming planets like Mars. If we had that capability, then we would be pretty much good to go for colonization of other planets.
All you have to do is crap out a bunch of ships, send them on their merry way, and maybe a few of them will set up other colonies. We don't need fancy fusion power, asteroid recycling, or space factories. We just need a concentrated effort on the part of the human race, so that the Chinese [or whoever] don't shoot down all of our ships.
Of course, you will need scout ships to find suitable planets. But finding planets is way easier than finding asteroids, even asteroid clouds.
And why do colony ships need any tools other than those for basic maintenance?
And incidentally, if your sun is going to go supernova in a little while, even your evacuation ships wouldn't make it. Supernovas often destroy not only the system they occur in, but nearby solar systems as well.
Well, until they run out resources anyway. At which point they'll hopefully be in the next system ,or have found some more rocks floating around somewhere.
Or they will all be dead. Oh well. I'm sure there are plenty more complex infrastructures lying around for us to launch into space.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Thrice thy blinded cat hath mewed....
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
My point isn't that it would be lost as in "it just floated off", but rather as in that it would be destroyed, damaged, would have crashed into something, lost life support, etc. while with the rest of the fleet.
You're still not thinking on the right scale. If you have a civilisation travelling like this, it's likely to not only have more than one of a type of factory, but also the kind of factories needed to produce spare parts for the broken factories. Put it like this, if an asteroid falls on the NASA shuttle factory (or wherever they buidl those things) can we never again build shuttles? No, because we have the tool and resources required to rebuild that place with the help of our other factories and the resources present.
Likewise, a spacefaring civilisation will have more than one factory, raw materials and the likes. If the can opener factory breaks it's bad, but it can be repaired. And if not, a new factory can be constructed. It's a civilisation, not 5 ships and a factory + a rock.
Also, if you can afford to launch your/an entire infrastructure into space, I don't think anything is going wrong anytime soon and there probably is nothing beyond your reach.
That's kind of the point. No one has claimed that this is something that will happen tomorrow, or that it's going to be easy. Just that it is possible, feasible (as far as we know) and not as bad an idea as you think for a advanced civilisation to send out splinters like this.
Oh and I'm not talking about can openers. I'm talking about some kind of specialized gadget that is really hard to make and has some more important function [assuming that you need one]. And obviously they would bring spares if they could. But unless your colonists can see into the future, I don't understand how you could possibly plan out exactly what you will need for the next thousand years. Most things you could probably fix or build, but there are other things that you can't make.
Again, factories, standardised parts and resources. Just like here on Earth. If you think about it, our civilisation has survived for the last 4000 years, and we've plenty of resources left even though we've barely scratched the surface of our planet. We don't need to know what we'll need in 1000 years but we'll be able to construct it by then. If we start out as a high tech civ instead of hunter-gatherers, we'll also be able to control our enviroment much better. spartan conversation of resources, remember?
So now we're talking about shoving asteroids around the Universe. So you float off into deep space with asteroid homes and sit around. Big deal. I doubt enough other asteroids will just happen to float by that you could just sit there indefinitely.
So plot a route where you come close to a star system now and then, send in scouts and borrow asteroids. The idea is not to stop somewhere (in relation to what?), it's to keep moving. Or alternatively as we talked about earlier, you just use it as a means of travelling between systems.
Actually, it would be much more efficient. Think of it this way. At this moment in time, the human race possesses primitive space flight. We have lots of people crowding the planet. We are currently exploring the possibility of terraforming planets like Mars. If we had that capability, then we would be pretty much good to go for colonization of other planets.
Not really. Even if we could terraform a planet, we haven't got the resources or technology to transport a large enough amount of people there with enough resources to keep them alive (and we don't know how to freeze them yet). Any colonisation by ship is far into the future.
All you have to do is crap out a bunch of ships, send them on their merry way, and maybe a few of them will set up other colonies. We don't need fancy fusion power, asteroid recycling, or space factories. We just need a concentrated effort on the part of the human race, so that the Chinese [or whoever] don't shoot down all of our ships.
Of course, you will need scout ships to find suitable planets. But finding planets is way easier than finding asteroids, even asteroid clouds.
I'm not arguing that we need to build splinter civilisations, only that it is a perfectly valid idea. You are the one insisting on applying all of this to us right now. And if we do that, please tell me how you plan to keep those people alive, and allow them to terrafrom a new planet with current technology if you just stick them in a ship and shoot them out. The nearest star is 4.2 or so lightyers away, with current speeds you'll have to keep those colonists alive and well for a very long time, and if a single system on your wonderful ship fials they are all dead anyway.
And it's not hard to find asteroids, they are right here in our system 
And why do colony ships need any tools other than those for basic maintenance?
When you arrive it might be nice to build a similar place to your own, rather than living in mud huts. For that you need a lot of technology for mining, construction, power generation and the likes. Or were you just going to land and become hunter-gatherers again?
And incidentally, if your sun is going to go supernova in a little while, even your evacuation ships wouldn't make it. Supernovas often destroy not only the system they occur in, but nearby solar systems as well.
Unless you happen to notice the signs a few 100 000 years in advance. Which you probably would if you have the tech to build huge galcatic arks and/or splinter civilisations.
Or they will all be dead. Oh well. I'm sure there are plenty more complex infrastructures lying around for us to launch into space.
Again, we are not trying to launch anything, we're discussing a possible way of living. Is "Oh well, I'm sure there are plenty more terraforming colony ships capable of sustaining huge numbers of humans for extended periods lying around for us to launch into space." a valid response?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 11:02:49 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Asimov's original point was that people would be living among the asteroids for a living, mining them and selling the metal down-system (i.e. to people on Earth, the Moon, and Mars), and would have been doing this for a long time, perfecting their independence gradually.
Before anyone commits everything to a move across to the next star, they're going to have practical experience in living without external support for a very long time at a stretch. Eventually, they'll get to the point that they never really need external support at all, and then the only question is whether they want to go.
~~~~
One thing to consider is that mass production will not be so important, since you can't afford to build disposable crap, and, likely, scales will be smaller (this may be a civilization, but I doubt it's going to be a large civilization). So, production runs will be shorter. So, factories in this civilization will be made much more general-purpose.
~~~~~
Population controls would serve to get the population down into the range where a generational starship can be built and launched given the resources remaining in the system. Expecting people to just not have children at all doesn't seem likely.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dancing Fungus
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 150
Armor always looks cool with extra techno...right?
|
Also, if you can afford to launch your/an entire infrastructure into space, I don't think anything is going wrong anytime soon and there probably is nothing beyond your reach. That's kind of the point. No one has claimed that this is something that will happen tomorrow, or that it's going to be easy. Just that it is possible, feasible (as far as we know) and not as bad an idea as you think for a advanced civilisation to send out splinters like this.
Well, ok then. I was arguing on the basis that you thought all of this would be ultra easy even with more primitive [dare I say practical?] technologies. Since that wasn't your argument at all I'll stop with that for now.
Also, please note that I know the scale of this idea and have the whole time. However, I am also of the mindset that if something is bigger and more complex, more can wrong. Never forget Murphy's law. 
Actually, it would be much more efficient. Think of it this way. At this moment in time, the human race possesses primitive space flight. We have lots of people crowding the planet. We are currently exploring the possibility of terraforming planets like Mars. If we had that capability, then we would be pretty much good to go for colonization of other planets. Not really. Even if we could terraform a planet, we haven't got the resources or technology to transport a large enough amount of people there with enough resources to keep them alive (and we don't know how to freeze them yet). Any colonisation by ship is far into the future.
Nonsense. We could spread to other planets in our solar system [do you actually think I meant interstellar travel?] quite easily with the resources we have here. All you need to do is build a couple of ships, fill a few of them with supplies and tools and terraforming equipment and then just cram your huddled masses in there. They could arrive on Mars or even Titan in a couple of years.
Obviously interstellar travel is still not an achievement of humanity. But if we developed a slightly better form of propulsion and cryogenics [plus a few other things] it could be. And I'll bet that's still easier than developing all of the other recycling and asteroid harvesting methods. If we pursue the idea of colony ships we would be able to colonize other worlds much more quickly than if we spend a thousand years of hard research and hope nothing goes wrong until we can live among asteroids.
The nearest star is 4.2 or so lightyers away, with current speeds you'll have to keep those colonists alive and well for a very long time, and if a single system on your wonderful ship fials they are all dead anyway.
Could you not send multiple ships? Or maintenance robots?
Is "Oh well, I'm sure there are plenty more terraforming colony ships capable of sustaining huge numbers of humans for extended periods lying around for us to launch into space." a valid response?
Not really. You could build thousands of these for every one asteroid fleet you make. And if you are advanced enough to make magical asteroid fleets where nothing ever goes wrong I think you could do just as well with colony ships. Sure, colony ships might be riskier, but you can make them easier and they could still arrive at their destination more quickly than the "asteroid riders".
The logical conclusion would be to try both methods and see which one works out better, but obviously we can't do that. Not yet anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Thrice thy blinded cat hath mewed....
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Well, ok then. I was arguing on the basis that you thought all of this would be ultra easy even with more primitive [dare I say practical?] technologies. Since that wasn't your argument at all I'll stop with that for now.
Yeah, like Death explained much better above, we're not just going to move over, it's a gradual process. I didn't really mention that since you seemed to be mostly concerned about viability, not how to get there. My apologies.
Also, please note that I know the scale of this idea and have the whole time. However, I am also of the mindset that if something is bigger and more complex, more can wrong. Never forget Murphy's law.
Earth is a pretty big place too. A civilisation (even a small one) can absorb mistakes much better than a single vessel.
Nonsense. We could spread to other planets in our solar system [do you actually think I meant interstellar travel?] quite easily with the resources we have here. All you need to do is build a couple of ships, fill a few of them with supplies and tools and terraforming equipment and then just cram your huddled masses in there. They could arrive on Mars or even Titan in a couple of years.
Yeah, I assumed you meant interstellar travel since you were talking about multiple planets and fusion engines. Still, that seems a bit iffy to me. Colonisation is certainly a viable on Mars and a few moons, but most planets are way out of our reach. It's not enough to send people there, they have to survive on their own. Venus and Mercury are inhospitable, Pluto is cold and dark. And the rest of them are gas giants. And even on the moons and Mars, we wont be building more than glorified outposts, dependent on products from Earth for quite some time.
Obviously interstellar travel is still not an achievement of humanity. But if we developed a slightly better form of propulsion and cryogenics [plus a few other things] it could be. And I'll bet that's still easier than developing all of the other recycling and asteroid harvesting methods.
You still need to be able to recycle pretty darn well on your colony as well. Otherwise it'll be dependent on the "motherland" or fail pretty quickly. And you need to harvest resources from the planet. This becomes especially important when you leave your own system and the trip back gets much longer. So you still recycle and you dig mines on a planet instead of on asteroids. One is possible right away, the other is clearly impossible and doomed to fail. Why?
If we pursue the idea of colony ships we would be able to colonize other worlds much more quickly than if we spend a thousand years of hard research and hope nothing goes wrong until we can live among asteroids.
Which is why no one in this thread has been saying anything about this being necessary. Splinter civilisations is an idea for a large present civilisation, not for one that has barely dipped it's feet in the space age. When the entire system is full of people and you've already sent out dozens of colony ships, then a asteroid civ can become a good option, especially if the asteroids have been colonised long ago anyway due to the large population.
Could you not send multiple ships? Or maintenance robots?
Because people on multiple ships will still need the same amount of food and tools no matter whether they arrive in five ships or one? You can certainly send a lot of tools in an automated ship and your colonists on another, but then that Murphys law of yours dictates that you shouldn't be too surprised when the tools get lost. Or maybe they break and can't be replaced? Also, your main argument point (which I'm not disagreeing with) is that it's cheaper to just send colony ships, rather than construct entire civilisations. Build enough of your backup ships, and you'll get close to a splinter anyway, just without the asteroids.
Not really. You could build thousands of these for every one asteroid fleet you make. And if you are advanced enough to make magical asteroid fleets where nothing ever goes wrong I think you could do just as well with colony ships. Sure, colony ships might be riskier, but you can make them easier and they could still arrive at their destination more quickly than the "asteroid riders".
Well if we ignore the fact that we don't make them for the same purpose sure. It makes much more sense to make thousands of magical colony ships that somehow have all the tools necessary for terraforming and building a civilisation without risk of those critical tools breaking than making an steroid fleet. Unless you already have people living in the asteroid fields who'd like to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Dancing Fungus
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 150
Armor always looks cool with extra techno...right?
|
Also, please note that I know the scale of this idea and have the whole time. However, I am also of the mindset that if something is bigger and more complex, more can wrong. Never forget Murphy's law. Smiley Earth is a pretty big place too.
And look at all the problems it has! Genocides and plagues and George Bush, oh my!
You still need to be able to recycle pretty darn well on your colony as well. Otherwise it'll be dependent on the "motherland" or fail pretty quickly. And you need to harvest resources from the planet.
Wouldn't the asteroid fleet have exactly the same problem when they colonized a planet? Since the assumption here seems to be that they both would need similar amounts of techno to do their respective jobs, then how would the asteroid fleet be better at colonizing a world? Sure, they might have more people and more initial resources, but sooner rather than later they would both be reliant on supplies from off-world. And any interstellar supply operation is not going to be easy.
Build enough of your backup ships, and you'll get close to a splinter anyway, just without the asteroids.
Well, you wouldn't send a fleet of a hundred or so ships to colonize one planet, because that would be overkill.
Well if we ignore the fact that we don't make them for the same purpose sure. It makes much more sense to make thousands of magical colony ships that somehow have all the tools necessary for terraforming and building a civilisation without risk of those critical tools breaking than making an steroid fleet. Unless you already have people living in the asteroid fields who'd like to leave.
If you have people floating around in an asteroid fleet all prepared to go, then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't send them. I may think colony ships are more efficient, but I'm not saying that we should ignore this idea altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Thrice thy blinded cat hath mewed....
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
And look at all the problems it has! Genocides and plagues and George Bush, oh my!
Genocide isn't going to make sense if you're all one civilization; plagues are things we can deal with here already, and they won't have to worry so much about diseases crossing over from animals, since there won't be wild animals all around.
George Bush... well, I'd say he's mainly dangerous because of his opposition.
Remember how ineffective he was in August of 2001?
Wouldn't the asteroid fleet have exactly the same problem when they colonized a planet?
The asteroid fleet is composed of people who are already self-sufficient with what they have. They would not have left unless they were. Any planet they find is a bonus. Your fleet of cryo-people is not self-sufficient at all. That's the difference.
Sure, they might have more people and more initial resources, but sooner rather than later they would both be reliant on supplies from off-world. ... so, no, they wouldn't.
Build enough of your backup ships, and you'll get close to a splinter anyway, just without the asteroids. I was not married to the concept of them bringing asteroids, merely that they would be capable of surviving off of asteroids; but do keep in mind that if these ships are going to be in space for a few thousand years, they'll want a lot of hydrogen around for fuel. Enough that your fuel tank will be indistinguishable from an oort cloud object. So, there's no real difference.
Well, you wouldn't send a fleet of a hundred or so ships to colonize one planet, because that would be overkill.
It all depends on the success rate, doesn't it? If 2% of ships will make it through in condition to be usable on the other end, 100 seems a reasonable gamble (provided that none will be so abruptly damaged that those on-board cannot be transferred to other vessels with spare capacity)
I'd like to point out another point of Asimov's, that only an asteroid civilization would be likely to want to go. Who would want to cut themselves off forever, with no chance of return, with the way of life on the way being totally alien and unpracticed, and only your 50-greats grandchildren get to make it to the other end? No one. But an asteroid civilization brings everyone with them, and the way of life is fairly ordinary to them. That there is another end is just a bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dancing Fungus
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 150
Armor always looks cool with extra techno...right?
|
Genocide isn't going to make sense if you're all one civilization;
People will ALWAYS find differences to squabble over. It is nigh-impossible for humans to really be able to work together peacefully unless they have a common enemy or a common goal of significant importance. It doesn't matter what you do. People will even risk their own lives to screw each other over.
Even if these people have learned to live with each other for years, how do you know that their children or their grandchildren will do the same?
plagues are things we can deal with here already,
Well, we think we can anyway. But just because you bombard a disease-causing virus or bacterium with antibiotics all the time doesn't necessarily make it harmless or "cured".
I'd like to point out another point of Asimov's, that only an asteroid civilization would be likely to want to go. Who would want to cut themselves off forever, with no chance of return, with the way of life on the way being totally alien and unpracticed, and only your 50-greats grandchildren get to make it to the other end? No one. But an asteroid civilization brings everyone with them, and the way of life is fairly ordinary to them. That there is another end is just a bonus.
What about people who live on a planet that is so overpopulated as to make it incredibly unpleasant to live there? Or people who are seen as heretics or "inferior" people and who are persecuted by everyone whom they meet?
And on a similar note, if my possible reasons for leaving the homeworld are successfully contradicted: who would want to be launched into space and live in giant spaceships that float around in a cloud of asteroids, where they are trapped for their entire lifetimes and expected to sacrifice nearly everything for the good of the fleet?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Thrice thy blinded cat hath mewed....
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
And look at all the problems it has! Genocides and plagues and George Bush, oh my!
Death already covered this, but why exactly do you think that this is something unique to a asteroid civilisation? Your hardy crew of 50.000 or so flying through space in a small cramped tin with ransoned food, nowhere to go, and no chance of surviving even the slightest accident seems like a pretty good place for genocide, plagues and all manners of trouble.
Wouldn't the asteroid fleet have exactly the same problem when they colonized a planet? Since the assumption here seems to be that they both would need similar amounts of techno to do their respective jobs, then how would the asteroid fleet be better at colonizing a world? Sure, they might have more people and more initial resources, but sooner rather than later they would both be reliant on supplies from off-world. And any interstellar supply operation is not going to be easy.
Like Death said, no. The whole idea that we've been putting forth several time is that a civilisation travelling this way is self-sufficient. They don't need to be restocked. The crew on your small colony ship wont be sufficient, unless they bring all that stuff (factories and so forth) with them, thus they will be dependent on help from home. What is the confusion here?
Well, you wouldn't send a fleet of a hundred or so ships to colonize one planet, because that would be overkill.
Like was already stated, it doesn't matter where you send them if their survival rate is low. Even if you send 50 to the same planet, chances are most wont make it.
If you have people floating around in an asteroid fleet all prepared to go, then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't send them. I may think colony ships are more efficient, but I'm not saying that we should ignore this idea altogether.
Your original statement was something along the lines "How would this work/Why would this work". I'm glad that's been cleared up.
People will ALWAYS find differences to squabble over. It is nigh-impossible for humans to really be able to work together peacefully unless they have a common enemy or a common goal of significant importance. It doesn't matter what you do. People will even risk their own lives to screw each other over.
Even if these people have learned to live with each other for years, how do you know that their children or their grandchildren will do the same?
This comes up whatever form of colonization you choose to use. I'd think that a larger group could absorb this sort fo trouble much better though.
Well, we think we can anyway. But just because you bombard a disease-causing virus or bacterium with antibiotics all the time doesn't necessarily make it harmless or "cured".
Vaccination seems to work quite well. An advantage with a civilisation built like this is that quarantines ought to be quite easy to enforce.
What about people who live on a planet that is so overpopulated as to make it incredibly unpleasant to live there? Or people who are seen as heretics or "inferior" people and who are persecuted by everyone whom they meet?
And on a similar note, if my possible reasons for leaving the homeworld are successfully contradicted: who would want to be launched into space and live in giant spaceships that float around in a cloud of asteroids, where they are trapped for their entire lifetimes and expected to sacrifice nearly everything for the good of the fleet?
The idea is that when you "leave" on an asteroid civilisation, you'll be taking a lot of your friends and family with you. You'll be living and working together, spending your lives together. With a colonisation ship, you're isolated and have a clear goal that needs to be achieved, building a colony from the ground once you arrive in the far future.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Dancing Fungus
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 150
Armor always looks cool with extra techno...right?
|
Death already covered this, but why exactly do you think that this is something unique to a asteroid civilisation? Your hardy crew of 50.000 or so flying through space in a small cramped tin with ransoned food, nowhere to go, and no chance of surviving even the slightest accident seems like a pretty good place for genocide, plagues and all manners of trouble.
I don't think that they are all going to butcher each other if they are cryogenically frozen. And if they aren't frozen, the distance they are traveling is probably fairly short, so they should have a decent chance of survival assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, which is always possible.
Vaccination seems to work quite well.
Vaccinations are useless against strands of diseases we know nothing about. Like those that have evolved to survive in a world with said vaccinations.
The idea is that when you "leave" on an asteroid civilisation, you'll be taking a lot of your friends and family with you. You'll be living and working together, spending your lives together. With a colonisation ship, you're isolated and have a clear goal that needs to be achieved, building a colony from the ground once you arrive in the far future.
That wasn't my point. I meant getting people to live in the asteroid cloud in the first place.
Would you like to leave your cozy home and be launched into space on a giant ship where you could float around inside a big cloud of space rocks surrounded by people you don't know? And in that giant space ship you would have to spend your entire life working like a dog so that maybe the 20th generation of your descendants [assuming you are allowed to have any and that they don't die] can live on some ugly little planet somewhere far away?
It seems to me that getting people to live this way would be just as hard at first as it would be to get people to live on a colony ship.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Thrice thy blinded cat hath mewed....
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
What is your problem?
if they aren't frozen, the distance they are traveling is probably fairly short, so they should have a decent chance of survival assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, which is always possible.
way to completely subvert the suppositions of the entire argument. This is irrelevant. We are talking about long intergenerational voyages.
Vaccinations are useless against strands of diseases we know nothing about. Like those that have evolved to survive in a world with said vaccinations.
These have contradictory assumptions AND are irrelevant. First, "a world we know nothing about" has very little to do with an asteroid civilization, because they don't need to go to planets. They can do their own little closed loop thing.
Second, "a world with vaccinations"... Earth is such a world. Also, any world they go to wouldn't be, since they'd be newcomers.
That wasn't my point. I meant getting people to live in the asteroid cloud in the first place.
Would you like to leave your cozy home and be launched into space on a giant ship where you could float around inside a big cloud of space rocks surrounded by people you don't know? And in that giant space ship you would have to spend your entire life working like a dog so that maybe the 20th generation of your descendants [assuming you are allowed to have any and that they don't die] can live on some ugly little planet somewhere far away?
This is total baloney. Are you only thinking about this to come up with reasons this is stupid and wrong, or are you trying to see how it might work? If the latter, you're really really really stupid. So, I am presently accepting that you are not trying to see how it might work. I suggest that this is not such a useful way to proceed in this discussion.
But to give you a start:
When this starts out, the participants CAN and DO go home. The people are highly paid professionals. They go out, they mine a while, they come home.
As they perfect the methods, some people opt to stay longer.
Once enough people are doing that, it becomes not crazy to stay permanently and have a family. You can still visit Earth.
Once a few generations have passed, Earth is that other place, it's not home.
Things progress from there.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 11, 2008, 06:47:56 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dancing Fungus
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 150
Armor always looks cool with extra techno...right?
|
if they aren't frozen, the distance they are traveling is probably fairly short, so they should have a decent chance of survival assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, which is always possible. way to completely subvert the suppositions of the entire argument. This is irrelevant. We are talking about long intergenerational voyages.
way to quote me out of context.
Vaccinations are useless against strands of diseases we know nothing about. Like those that have evolved to survive in a world with said vaccinations. These have contradictory assumptions AND are irrelevant. First, "a world we know nothing about" has very little to do with an asteroid civilization, because they don't need to go to planets. They can do their own little closed loop thing. Second, "a world with vaccinations"... Earth is such a world. Also, any world they go to wouldn't be, since they'd be newcomers.
Sorry for trying to use different vocabulary. I meant "world" as in dimension, universe, place of being, not as in a planet.
Let me ask you: would YOU like to leave the Earth to live on a mining platform and come back every 5 or 10 years [or whatever]? Would you do it once to see what it was like and not go back?
I've noticed that seem to be becoming very emotional about this, even to the point of questioning my intelligence, which I find most rude . But in the interest of preventing conflict and general unhappiness, I offer you this: I will shut up if you want me to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Thrice thy blinded cat hath mewed....
|
|
|
|
