Hacker News Reader

It's interesting that we generally suppose either we'll achieve some super-greatness as a species or die out in some horrible cataclysm. How species-centric. As the author notes, a long, slow, fizzle into nothingness seems much more highly probable than some dramatic ending.

On cosmic timescales, is there that much of a difference? Let's say it took us 10,000 years for humans to become a decadent machine-coddled idiocracy that one day forgets to turn off the sexbots long enough to reproduce. That would still be just a blip on cosmic timescales.

Seeing that as being dramatically different than blowing ourselves up Dr. Strangelove style is also taking a very human-centric viewpoint.

The other way to look at it is, technology is delivering into the hands of individuals the ability to do what only governments could do earlier. Thus you have Burt Rutan and other ragtag teams able to compete in the new space race to LEO and the moon.

Let the government take care of the weak and protect and preserve, that's what it's mainly for in a society, and leave the adventurism to the adventurous. Obama's steps seem consistent with this.

I couldn't agree more. This article was filled with the kind of fluffy juxtapose that says a lot by saying nothing at all about what's actually going on. We stand on the verge of the next great technological expansion of biology, information processing, energy, space exploration, and fundamental discoveries in physics. To assume we are anymore closer to a pinnacle now than we were 500 years ago is to be either complacent with what we've accomplished or too farsighted to see what is left to accomplish.

It's not about individualism, really.

There are tons of individualists who would love to explore space and contaminates environment they touch.

Generally, democracies have nothing to do with spending money on oursleves, but free market does. All that mean is that the average individual have very high-time preference.

Meanwhile those individuals with very low-time preferences want to aim for the stars. The market can provide for them, too in the form of private space industries.

Do I view our presence in the universe as an evil? Naw. That's for scary folks who hate their own humanity.

Interesting thought experiment (perhaps an idea for a short story or novel?)

You're some average Joe tinkering in his basement. Somehow or another you manage to invent true field propulsion -- direct conversion of electricity into electromotive force. Point the antenna, turn a knob, and you get a push.

Let's assume for purposes of making a better story that you are anti-government, eccentric, cranky, and ill-tempered.

What would happen? Could you buy some kind of second-hand pressure suits and go into space? Would that be legal? How about land on the moon? Does the treaty dealing with the moon allow individuals to visit? To set up occupation? I think the rules are the same as Antarctica-- individuals can't visit except as a science mission.

How about Mars? Could you build a big space barge and move to one of the ice-soaked canyons on Mars? Finally, what if microbial life were on Mars and the moon. Would it be possible for groups to sue to prevent you from moving somewhere?

There are a lot of interesting details here that most people don't know, such as the ability for folks in the United States to build their own airplanes and fly them without a license under certain conditions. Or the ability of governments to control their citizens even when those citizens are no longer reside inside their borders. Or the growing opposition to humans living on planets that already have life on them.

Nevertheless, when humans are exploring space the principles and policies of planetary protection, developed by COSPAR in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, still apply. Implementation guidelines include documenting and minimizing contamination of the exploration targets, control at the most stringent levels for locations in which Earth life might grow, and protection of humans from exposure to untested planetary materials. Preventing harmful contamination of the Earth must be of the highest priority for all missions.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

See for an example, Duncan Long's "Anti-grav Unlimited". Note Long is primarily a CQB and weapons writer so his scientific background is rather limited.

When living on other planets actually becomes a practical possibility, all those rules and laws will most likely go right out the window.

The more interesting questions are: who will be living there? why? and how?

Long, slow, fizzle.. I believe the image which most resembles our universe is a puff of dissipating smoke. Why do we entertain the idea some miraculous design will reconstitute a cosmic puff back into it's original structure? The universe cannot care about a smoke puff, and it cannot care about itself.

In the long term, we are fated to "succeed." Thermodynamics is on the side of our disappearance.

Thermodynamics would only matter over the multi-billion year span and is irrelevant for the matters discussed here.