Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I can't seem to load that page.

I am a Catholic who has studied theology, and I am also an advocate of space colonization. So I don't understand what the problem is. Nor is there anything in Catholic theology that precludes the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. (Now, should such life ever be found, it would pose some interesting theological questions regarding them and their place in God's oikonomia, but that's beside the point.)

So, although I haven't been able to read the post to which you're referring, Rand, I suspect that I'd disagree with the author also.

Posted by Kevin Adams at January 18, 2007 02:13 PM

Hmmmm...loads fine for me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 18, 2007 02:25 PM

It is the musings of some pompous assbag and his strawman chrous.

Like Rand says he makes it a screed about those who search for BEM's

He offered no even slightly compelling argument as to why space colonization is impossible.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 18, 2007 02:49 PM

I do hope Mr. Shea lives at least long enough to have those words come back to haunt him...

Posted by Frank Glover at January 18, 2007 02:52 PM

I don't think that people like Mr. Shea realize just exactly what they are trying to do here. Expanding into space, either it be the O'neill space colony method or perhaps some kind of FTL like the Heim hyperdrive, are representative of what's called a positive sum game.

The advocates of having everyone stay here, like Mr. Shea from the right, or some of the Utne writers from the left, are advocating what's called a zero sum game.

The thing about positive sum games is that we all win, even if we do not agree with each other or do not want anything to do with each other. You go your way and I go mine. Everybody gets to do their own thing and everyone wins.

On the other hand, a negative sum game means that, for someone to win, someone else has to loose. This means that we all end up fighting each other, since winning for everyone is not posible. One does not enter into or create the conditions for a zero-sum game unless one believes that they have a high probability of beating everyone else.

Does Mr. Shea (on the right) and the lefty-luddites of the Utne reader really want to create a zero-sum game? Do they really think that they can win? Do not realize that biotech and nanotech will lead to the creation of some fairly nasty tools that will get used if we are all required to duke it out in a zero-sum game?

Personally, I don't believe in zero-sum games and, consequently, I refuse to play them. That is why I am libertarian, transhumanist, and an advocate of space colonization. It is also why I have either worked for small companies or have been self-employed. Nevertheless, I do believe in "winning" in anything that I do.

If anyone does force me to play a zero-sum game, I will do anything I can to make sure I "win" and I do not believe in fighting "fair". Do you really want to engage us in a zero-sum game?

Trust me on this one. You really do not want to suck me into a zero-sum game. You really, really do not want to do this.

Take this for whatever its worth.

Posted by Kurt9 at January 18, 2007 04:29 PM

Another point for Mr. Shea:

He obviously wants to create his christian utopia.

If space colonization is possible and takes place, that means that all of us "malcontents" who don't want anything to do with his utopia can go somewhere else totally separate from him and do our own thing.

If space colonization is not possible, that means that he has to construct his christian utopia with all of us "malcontents" remaining with him on Earth.

Why on Earth would he think that the second condition is preferable to the first condition? Would it not be easier for him to create his christian utopia if all of the rest of us who want nothing to do with it are free to go somewhere else?

I would think it would be in his best interest to promote space development. Certainly this relates to the positive-sum vs. zero-sum game I mention before.

Posted by Kurt9 at January 18, 2007 04:51 PM

As a Catholic, I think the best response I can think of to Mr. Shea is a very dismissive "Whatever."

Posted by Greg at January 18, 2007 05:05 PM

> Nor is there anything in Catholic theology that precludes the existence
> of extraterrestrial intelligent life.

The plurality of worlds has been considered by Catholic theologians for centuries, including St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

That's irrelevant to this article, however, because the author himself states that he is not arguing on theological grounds.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 18, 2007 05:11 PM

I actually think that we have all of the elements save one to colonize the solar system. That one is money of course. There are no technological barriers to us inhabiting the Moon, Mars, minor planets, and free space. Just money.

I think that the price of an optimal architecture could be much less than has been assumed. If this is the case, when does the line between private enterprise and the cash get crossed? That is the key question for us in the first decade of the 21st century.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at January 18, 2007 10:11 PM

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at January 18, 2007 10:11 PM

I've never been a big fan of space colonization and think it would be best if we just developed the technology to exploit the resources in space without having to use humans. Let's save all of those resources in the Solar System for the inhabitants of this planet, and not waste them overpopulating the solar system with people who likely at some point would express those same human failings for greed, power, and war and bang up the Earth for these demented purposes.

Posted by earthling at January 19, 2007 03:26 AM

catholics suck, their stock is not worth a lot on trendio http://www.trendio.com/word.php?wordid=1551&language=en

Posted by Robertosucco at January 19, 2007 05:18 AM

Dennis writes:

I agree.

But to be "first" someone will need to act without certainty that the "line between private enterprise and cash" has been crossed and that sure sounds a lot like faith to me. See Jon Goff's recent post on faith.

Because public corporations will have a devil of a time justifying to their shareholders the expenditure of billions of dollars based on faith, perhaps an organized religion is best situated to take the leap and attempt the first space colony somewhere.

(Hence my draft novel about a Mormon city on Mars which has been kicking around un-edited for several years. Sam Dinkin has a copy as does Jon Goff, so it is a real draft.)

If the Mormons did build a city on Mars, I believe that would help their missionaries BIG TIME. A religion that embraced the future rather than the past? Seems to me that would be very appealing to young people around the world.

It would also make people like Shea nuts (and would drive my sequel in which the Vatican felt compelled to build their own city on Mars) while certain other religions will say: "Why bother, the Rapture is coming."

= = =

Whichever subset of humanity (Anglosphere? Mormon? Catholic, Hindi? secular humanists?) does the best job of getting people out there and making babies the fastest simply will possess a dominant role in shaping the future history and culture of the entire Solar System.

Demographics is indeed destiny.

= = =

Here is a theological question. If "Left Behind" did happen but 100 people were on Mars would those Mars settlers be exempt from the end of the world here on Earth or would the Apocylapse engulf them as well?

Posted by Bill White at January 19, 2007 05:42 AM

> He also deploys the foolish Antarctica analogy.

I always hate to see that one because it proceeds from an incorrect assumption. Space settlement advocates don't advocate what they do because we're running out of room for people and need a new, currently-empty place to put the excess. That's demonstrably untrue. We advocate what we do because we desire a destiny for mankind which lies beyond this one, tiny little corner of the universe we currently find ourselves in.

Posted by Mike Combs at January 19, 2007 06:32 AM

The main problem with the Antarctica analogy is he ignores those pesky treaties that prohibit colonization.

I dare say Antarctica would be more like the north slope of Alaska without those in effect.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 19, 2007 06:55 AM

"I've never been a big fan of space colonization and think it would be best if we just developed the technology to exploit the resources in space without having to use humans. Let's save all of those resources in the Solar System for the inhabitants of this planet, and not waste them overpopulating the solar system with people who likely at some point would express those same human failings for greed, power, and war and bang up the Earth for these demented purposes."

The problem with that line of thinking is it still leaves all our eggs in the same aging basket.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 19, 2007 06:56 AM

I do unfortunately find one part of his argument compelling, the "Antartica first" arument. Nevermind the practicality of colonizing Antarctica. If we cannot, in this day and age, find the political will to do that, when our technology makes it not only doable, but relatively easy, what makes us think we will find the will to do something so many orders of magnitude harder?

Technology aside, where is our cultural willpower? Our own human culture is, as always, the greatest threat to our continued advancement. (Even if is also our greatest ally.)

Posted by tom at January 19, 2007 07:27 AM

mike,
Antartica like the north slope? With a few differences...e.g., humans have been living on the North Slope for thousands of years, on Antartica for only 50. Although the existence of a vast continent in Antarctica should make it easier over all.

Posted by tom at January 19, 2007 07:31 AM

And the reason for Antarticas isolation is the difficulty to approach it by sea if you are limited to a Kayak. A difficulty the north slope does not share thus its historic access.

This limitation no longer applies. Climatically, living on the coast of Antarctica should be no more difficult than living on the north slope of Alaska.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 19, 2007 07:41 AM

Actually, the reason for the "no base in Antarctica" is that Antarctica is more protected by international treaties then POWs.

That, and we are not there yet.

I don't think money is the main problem. I think the main problem lies somewhere that to get to the Moon, we would need 1 billion dollars again. Unless we develop a cheaper method. The technology is on the shelf, but that doesn't mean that its ready.

Posted by A Hungarian at January 19, 2007 08:40 AM

Anyone that puts forth a limiting view is on the wrong side of history ('640k should be enough for everybody'...B.G.) but what surprises me is how hostile some are to a person without vision. Especially when it seems to me we all fall into the mostly blind category!

Rand is right that the post confuses two different issues. The argument I've heard is that the bible says 'the earth is given to mortal man' & 'they will reside forever upon it' However, that in no way precludes going other places.

We are absolutely and definitely going to settle the solar system unless some major catastrophe comes first (lack of money isn't going to stop us because those with enough will are already working the problem.) As for the stars, who knows? But I'd like to think we'd make that trip someday even if I don't live to see it.

Posted by ken anthony at January 19, 2007 09:06 AM

I always find it amusing to hear these sorts of arguments from religious people. (Which does not mean I disrespect religious people... I just can't bring myself to be one. But I digress.) "I believe that our savior was born of a virgin, was revived after three days of death, and is coming back... any day now. But space colonies? That's just silly."

Well, okay.

Posted by Patrick at January 19, 2007 12:44 PM

First off, I agree with Ken who asks, "Why the hostility?" Some people don't get it. There are things that Mark P. Shea is right about you don't get. So what? I thought you wanted to be persuasive not form a new hate group.

Secondly, the reason we don't have a city on Antarctica is because no one wants to live there and there is nothing much to gain. Give a good economic reason to build a metropolis there and by golly there would be one. Yeah, treaties. Put 500 billion on the table and we'll see how long those treaties last.

Meanwhile there is lots to gain in space. Let me sell the resources of one asteroid, or sell land in a hollowed out asteroid, and I'll be rich, rich, rich!

But frankly his point is not that any of this is impossible. He posits that we can do all of this on a limited scale but says that we won't be colonizing other planets. To me that means he thinks there won't wholesale transfer of population to Mars or the moon.

Now, while I see the economic basis for bases on the moon I don't know that I see the impetus for full scale colonization. As to Mars, that is a long trip to arrive on a hostile planet. Where is the economic gain? Why do millions of people want to live there? I can see selling lots of cruises past Antarctica but I can't imagine much of a market for selling real estate. The same goes for Mars as things stand now.

Frankly all of this only works if you assume one of two things:

1. A very, very, very long time frame to allow for terraforming Mars according to any of the concepts I've seen.
2. Nanotech supplying the ability to start a chain reaction of exponentially self replicating bots to change the atmosphere to something more compatible with humanity in relatively short order.

Either one I wouldn't say never to and frankly am optimistic that anti-aging therapies will be successful so that I'll live to see both. But surely some skepticism on literally planet altering technologies is warranted and even if he turns out to be incorrect it's not worth scorn and ridicule.

Tell you what. Go into a room full of a random selection of people and tell them you plan to move to Mars and you'll be the one on the receiving end of ridicule, my friends. That is, until one day we can show them it's not folly and that they have something to gain. Then, and only then, do you go down in the history book rather than into the crank pot.

Posted by Gerald Hib bs at January 19, 2007 01:00 PM

Gerald, if only a few thousand people move to Mars and acquire the ability to extract carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in situ fast enough to sustain a high birth rate there will be no need for millions to emigrate.

Posted by Bill White at January 19, 2007 01:06 PM

The way I see it:

Either there are other intelligences out there, or there are not. (I mean mortal beings, or ones that used to be mortal, not the supernatural).

If there are, given the incredibly short time that human civilisation has existed, then they will be so far ahead of us that they would be utterly incomprehensible. (In twenty thousand years we have come from the caves to the threshold of space; where will we be after a million? Or a billion?)

And they likely won't care what we do, and if they do care and don't like it then we would have a chance of resisting them roughly equivalent to that of a snowflake in a blast furnace.

If there are not? Well, then this tribe of jumped-up monkeys has the right, and I would say the duty, to expand - to bring life to the rest of the universe. YES, US.

The alternative is to keep on as we are, and eventually to run out of critical resources, and after that to go back to the caves and maybe devolve to non-sapience; and there will be none after us, for we will have used up resources that will take a billion years to replace - and the biosphere hasn't got that long, as the Sun gets relentlessly hotter as it ages.

Wells said it much better than I. "It is the Universe or nothing; which will it be?"

We have maybe thirty years to decide. My vote is for the Universe.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 20, 2007 05:23 AM

Fletcher,

How many posts have you made here? Well, this time I agree with you 100%. Maybe 200%.

All the others? Not so much. ;-)

Cheers! :-)

= = =

Ooops. I can indeed quibble with that 30 year window bit but as a rallying point I can also live with an alleged 30 year window.

Posted by Bill White at January 20, 2007 08:49 AM

There are lots of problems to solve in order to achieve a viable extraterrestrial settlement, and some of them might be larger roadblocks than most realize. What happens to humans in the long term when the gravity goes down to 1/6 of Earth's, for example? We already know microgravity is physiologically disastrous. Would we have to live in a centrifuge all the time in order to be able to return to Earth?

Maybe Shea is right, I dunno. I agree he doesn't provide a very convincing or relevant argument, though.

Posted by David Bush at January 20, 2007 09:26 AM

Who says anyone has to live on the Moon, except perhaps for 6-month stays to run the mines, in the manner of oil rigs?

Build our own places to live and the "gravity" can be set at any value we like.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 20, 2007 11:58 AM

I don't think it is so much the gravity as is the magnetism of the Earth that we are irrevocably linked to. We have recently found proof of Biogenic Magnetite crystals that exist in the ethmoid bone right between our eyes. Even what little time we have spent in space one thing has remained worrisome, our inability to maintain bone density. Even with machinations that try to mimick the gravity environment we haven't seen many promising results. I am aware that we haven't built a full fledged artificial gravity system in orbit. As well I have kept track of research into a magnetic field generation as well. I'm just worried that even after developing such technologies the possibility remains that the human body/spirit is carefully attenuated to the Earth's energy and without its fertile environment we will slowly whither and die.

Posted by Josh Reiter at January 21, 2007 09:12 PM

13000 visitors a year go to Antarctica. If per capita GDP keeps doubling every 30 years, our descendants in 500 years should have $4 trillion each in 2007 dollars. I'd probably go for a visit to the Moon if I had a spare $100 million. The average earner should within 330 years.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at January 22, 2007 11:09 AM

Post a comment