Technology, Science and the Environment.

[ozleicester]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

They really aren't. The irrepressible and insatiable desire to explore and challenge the boundaries of what we know and where we have been has provided benefits to our society for millennia. In addition to research and natural resources, space exploration helps to address fundamental questions about our place in the Universe and the history of our solar system. More pressingly, as a species, we need to find a way to get off this rock because out tenancy will eventually run out - nature will see to that. 

We need to fix what we are doing to this rock and the people on it.. rather than try to escape.

[SpacedX]

17 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

We need to fix what we are doing to this rock and the people on it.. rather than try to escape.

No, we need to do both. Meanwhile, human exploration is indomitable. 

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

please explain?

Couldnt be more wrong, i love and care about people.

You know something, my use of that word was too strong, I apologise.

 

You and I see eye to eye on a lot of things Oz and I know you care deeply about a lot of people, but with greatest respect you have a blind spot regarding tech and science advancement in this matter and that blind spot only leads to an awful lot of avoidable death and suffering. We can be as good custodians of Earth as we like, at some point it's going to throw something at us we need resources or manpower from elsewhere to address in order to preserve our species. That is a matter of mathematical certainty over time.

 

Of course there are numerous other issues, but this cannot be a zero sum game and we need to focus on all or as many as possible at the same time, because they all have that risk of terrible things happening.

[ozleicester]

54 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You know something, my use of that word was too strong, I apologise.

 

You and I see eye to eye on a lot of things Oz and I know you care deeply about a lot of people, but with greatest respect you have a blind spot regarding tech and science advancement in this matter and that blind spot only leads to an awful lot of avoidable death and suffering. We can be as good custodians of Earth as we like, at some point it's going to throw something at us we need resources or manpower from elsewhere to address in order to preserve our species. That is a matter of mathematical certainty over time.

 

Of course there are numerous other issues, but this cannot be a zero sum game and we need to focus on all or as many as possible at the same time, because they all have that risk of terrible things happening.

You also have a blind spot... there is unavoidable suffering happening right now that could be alleviated by reducing the waste of spending on space travel.

The majority of space exploration is for war, or personal advancement. The "we all benefit" theory is just an excuse to piss money into space instead of saving the lives of people right now.

Your mathematical "certainty" is just a lineal assumption and that our space waste will be able to prevent or cope with it...has no justifiable evidence.

Right now parts of the earth are burning, flooding and blowing away and we cant (or choose not to) deal with that. If this great event from space (or earth right now) occurs... we are clearly not going to deal with it.

Edit, Also your word choice was way beyond "too strong" it was fundamentally wrong  and incredibly offensive.

Edited 21 August 2023 by ozleicester

[leicsmac]

56 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

You also have a blind spot... there is unavoidable suffering happening right now that could be alleviated by reducing the waste of spending on space travel.
 

Certainly it could and there certainly should be more resources devoted to such, but neglecting space programs in favour of doing so simply condemns those people who are suffering later, rather than now. Speaking personally, I'd rather do both and avoid it entirely, which is possible.

 

59 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

The majority of space exploration is for war, or personal advancement. The "we all benefit" theory is just an excuse to piss money into space instead of saving the lives of people right now.

If this were true (and it's not, there's a laundry list of developments from space programs with great utility here on Earth, too), it still doesn't invalidate the necessity. See above.

 

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Your mathematical "certainty" is just a lineal assumption and that our space waste will be able to prevent or cope with it...has no justifiable evidence.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear here. The mathematical certainty is that an event either on Earth or from outside of it will, at some point, require resources and understanding brought about by spaceflight, whether bodies or materials or both - or terrible things will happen, no matter how well we take care of the Earth. It's happened multiple times in the history of our planet and it will do so again, and we simply must be ready for it when it does.

 

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Right now parts of the earth are burning, flooding and blowing away and we cant (or choose not to) deal with that. If this great event from space (or earth right now) occurs... we are clearly not going to deal with it.
 

Certainly we're flubbing our lines as a species, but I don't think that means we should fatally underprepare and just leave it all in the hands of fate.

 

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Edit, Also your word choice was way beyond "too strong" it was fundamentally wrong  and incredibly offensive.

Then I most humbly beg your pardon.

 

But, if we're to continue regarding that, I wonder what word would best describe a person who does genuinely care about people and want the best for them, while not taking into account nearly enough some particular future events that may harm those people considerably?

[HighPeakFox]

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

if we're to continue regarding that, I wonder what word would best describe a person who does genuinely care about people and want the best for them, while not taking into account nearly enough some particular future events that may harm those people considerably?

Doesn't that describe nearly all of us? I think Oz is not your target here Mac - most of us aren't good enough at chess to figure this all out. It doesn't make us misanthropic, in the same way that accidental racism isn't the same as genuine hatred of other races.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Doesn't that describe nearly all of us? I think Oz is not your target here Mac - most of us aren't good enough at chess to figure this all out. It doesn't make us misanthropic, in the same way that accidental racism isn't the same as genuine hatred of other races.

Fair to say and I've already apologised twice for the use of the word, it was inaccurate.

 

However, I also think Oz is mistaken in his attacks on space programs, as well intentioned the arguments may be, for reasons I've already gone into in detail.

[HighPeakFox]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair to say and I've already apologised twice for the use of the word, it was inaccurate.

 

However, I also think Oz is mistaken in his attacks on space programs, as well intentioned the arguments may be, for reasons I've already gone into in detail.

I see no attack. I think your passion for the subject is causing you to be defensive.

[ozleicester]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Certainly it could and there certainly should be more resources devoted to such, but neglecting space programs in favour of doing so simply condemns those people who are suffering later, rather than now. Speaking personally, I'd rather do both and avoid it entirely, which is possible.

Do both?...We clearly don't have that choice/option... right now we are depriving people and the planet of necessary $, so we can go to space.

 

If this were true (and it's not, there's a laundry list of developments from space programs with great utility here on Earth, too), it still doesn't invalidate the necessity. See above.

See above, we are developing stuff, but starving people and killing the planet RIGHT NOW!

 

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear here. The mathematical certainty is that an event either on Earth or from outside of it will, at some point, require resources and understanding brought about by spaceflight, whether bodies or materials or both - or terrible things will happen, no matter how well we take care of the Earth. It's happened multiple times in the history of our planet and it will do so again, and we simply must be ready for it when it does.

That could be tomorrow, it could be in a million years  and still there is no guarantee that we can manage those "terrible things" next week or in 2 million years...... meanwhile that kid starved to death as the rocket crashed on the moon today

 

Certainly we're flubbing our lines as a species, but I don't think that means we should fatally underprepare and just leave it all in the hands of fate.

Neither do i, but i think we should start by fixing our immediate problems, rather than take money and human effort away for a problem that can (or possibly cannot) be solved in the future

 

Then I most humbly beg your pardon.

Thanks

 

But, if we're to continue regarding that, I wonder what word would best describe a person who does genuinely care about people and want the best for them, while not taking into account nearly enough some particular future events that may harm those people considerably?

Alternately what is the word for a person who is happy for people to starve and suffer today, and for the planet to burn tomorrow as long as they get to explore a mostly insignificant rock that has already been explored?

To think, I am the poster who is routinely accused of being an idealist and has unrealistic expectations.  

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I see no attack. I think your passion for the subject is causing you to be defensive.

I would personally think that "meaningless waste(s) of money and expertise" is an attack, but YMMV.

 

I'm certainly passionate about the topic and will zealously defend it, but my arguments for its continuation are based on practical fact, as far as I and the scientific community know.

 

3 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

To think, I am the poster who is routinely accused of being an idealist and has unrealistic expectations.  

We're both idealists, and that's no bad thing.

 

I honestly think that we should, must, focus on both issues at the same time with the amount of resources both require to get done, because the alternative either way is very, very nasty. That's about it, really.

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I honestly think that we should, must, focus on both issues at the same time with the amount of resources both require to get done, because the alternative either way is very, very nasty. That's about it, really.

But we are not doing that... we have to decide.. today... which gets enough... space or people... and for me its the planet and people right now.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

But we are not doing that... we have to decide.. today... which gets enough... space or people... and for me its the planet and people right now.

And so that needs to be changed. But find the resources somewhere else, for the sake of the future of those people.

[dsr-burnley]

21 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

But we are not doing that... we have to decide.. today... which gets enough... space or people... and for me its the planet and people right now.

To be fair, we all have a list of frivolous things (individually or via the state) that could be given up and the money used for the poor.  Holidays, internet, space travel, football.  I'm happy to give up space travel.

 

But could I really criticise those people that want space travel, and want to spend the money on it, while I continue to waste it on ridiculously high paid player wages, and on other non-essentials?  Other people have different priorities, that's all.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

No, we need to do both. Meanwhile, human exploration is indomitable. 

The idea we're going to colonize anywhere else before climate disaster strikes here is beyond fanciful. Climate disaster is here and it's just the beginning. Within 20 years we're going to see really significant impacts on humanity. We need to be expending every fibre of our collective efforts on keeping earth livable. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

The idea we're going to colonize anywhere else before climate disaster strikes here is beyond fanciful. Climate disaster is here and it's just the beginning. Within 20 years we're going to see really significant impacts on humanity. We need to be expending every fibre of our collective efforts on keeping earth livable. 

Certainly.

 

But that's merely the first in a long line of threats that we need to negotiate if we want to survive the long haul. And some of them will need expertise regarding space to be negotiated anywhere near successfully. I can understand the idea of higher priorities, but there's no point in surviving one global threat only to be wiped by the next one soon after we weren't ready for.

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

43 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

The idea we're going to colonize anywhere else before climate disaster strikes here is beyond fanciful. Climate disaster is here and it's just the beginning. Within 20 years we're going to see really significant impacts on humanity. We need to be expending every fibre of our collective efforts on keeping earth livable. 

Keeping earth liveable isn't a problem.  The earth was a lot warmer than this in dinosaurs' time and it was liveable then, and would have been for humans if there had been any.  Obviously it's not the environment we want, but the idea that the earth wouldn't be liveable if the Ice Age ended and all the ice caps melted, isn't accurate.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Keeping earth liveable isn't a problem.  The earth was a lot warmer than this in dinosaurs' time and it was liveable then, and would have been for humans if there had been any.  Obviously it's not the environment we want, but the idea that the earth wouldn't be liveable if the Ice Age ended and all the ice caps melted, isn't accurate.

True.

 

But it would be nice not to have such a transition that would in all likelihood cost billions of lives and societal collapse.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

6 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Keeping earth liveable isn't a problem.  The earth was a lot warmer than this in dinosaurs' time and it was liveable then, and would have been for humans if there had been any.  Obviously it's not the environment we want, but the idea that the earth wouldn't be liveable if the Ice Age ended and all the ice caps melted, isn't accurate.

You greatly underestimate the problem.

 

Will humanity survive the next 20-40 years? Yes. Without almost instant civilisation level change will we exist in the same numbers? No. 

 

Vast areas of the earth will be unliveable. In the sense that the wet bulb temperature will exceed what the human body can withstand for large parts of the year and/or crops will no longer be able to grow across large areas.

 

Canada will probably be in good shape. It'll have the climate of the US South. But the current US South will be extremely harsh.

Within relatively short order.

 

There'll be mass migrations and war will be fought over those migrations and access to food and water. 

 

This all sounds crazy, but it's relatively realistic given that observable changes exceed even the worst case projections at this moment.

 

 

[Zear0]

Slight tangent, but relevent to the earlier discussion on the "worth" of certain technological pursuits.  When I was dishing out cash for research (professionally not out of boredom), one of the research proposals was "Improved accuracy regarding the metrology of jelly" (or words to that effect, was a decade ago).  Long story short, whenever you measure something accurately you generally have to touch it which can, in some materials, cause distortion affecting the result you're trying to achieve.  Out of this work came the most accurate laser based surveying equipment which has since been deployed into some of the more hazardous rooms around the world that require decommissioning due to the horrible nuclear work that used to go on in there.  Point I'm making is that for a lot of research and technological pursuits, the true value can rarely be judged until some time after.  Cold fusion, and I'll say it, this LK99 nonsence, research probably seemed quite value added at the time.

 

That's not to say we should carte blanche say every space based pursuit is worthwhile, but unless we develop time travel to know which endeavours will ultimately benefit humanity it's a bit nonsensicle to say it's friverlous.

Edited 21 August 2023 by Zear0

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

You greatly underestimate the problem.

 

Will humanity survive the next 20-40 years? Yes. Without almost instant civilisation level change will we exist in the same numbers? No. 

 

Vast areas of the earth will be unliveable. In the sense that the wet bulb temperature will exceed what the human body can withstand for large parts of the year and/or crops will no longer be able to grow across large areas.

 

Canada will probably be in good shape. It'll have the climate of the US South. But the current US South will be extremely harsh.

Within relatively short order.

 

There'll be mass migrations and war will be fought over those migrations and access to food and water. 

 

This all sounds crazy, but it's relatively realistic given that observable changes exceed even the worst case projections at this moment.

 

 

It's not crazy. It's entirely plausible. Let that be clear as day to everyone.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

It's not crazy. It's entirely plausible. Let that be clear as day to everyone.

Tbh it's more than plausible. It appears almost certain unfortunately.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Tbh it's more than plausible. It appears almost certain unfortunately.

There is time for the necessary solutions to be applied to prevent such an outcome, but the window is closing fast and the cost will keep rising, materially and in human life.

[MonkeyTennis?]

1 hour ago, Sideshow Faes said:

The idea we're going to colonize anywhere else before climate disaster strikes here is beyond fanciful. Climate disaster is here and it's just the beginning. Within 20 years we're going to see really significant impacts on humanity. We need to be expending every fibre of our collective efforts on keeping earth livable. 

The sad truth is that, as a species, we are probably no more capable of making the kind of dramatic technological and social changes required to stop or reverse climate change, as we are of sending human beings to live on other worlds. Both are almost impossibly difficult challenges that require a level of organisation and discipline to achieve that seems to be almost totally beyond the capability of human beings at a collective or individual level. And I don't mean that in a judgemental or fatalistic way - we are what we are. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MonkeyTennis? said:

The sad truth is that, as a species, we are probably no more capable of making the kind of dramatic technological and social changes required to stop or reverse climate change, as we are of sending human beings to live on other worlds. Both are almost impossibly difficult challenges that require a level of organisation and discipline to achieve that seems to be almost totally beyond the capability of human beings at a collective or individual level. And I don't mean that in a judgemental or fatalistic way - we are what we are. 

 

 

As much as this is accurate, those invested must proceed as if it is not, because otherwise it becomes a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy anyway.

 

Don't give up until it is absolutely certain. And we're not there yet.

[SpacedX]

10 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

The idea we're going to colonize anywhere else before climate disaster strikes here is beyond fanciful. Climate disaster is here and it's just the beginning. 

Agree and at no stage did I suggest that we should or will. 

 

10 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Within 20 years we're going to see really significant impacts on humanity. 

We already are. 

 

12 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

We need to be expending every fibre of our collective efforts on keeping earth livable. 

Yes indeed we do, but not at the expense of getting off it. 

 

Unfortunately there are many, many things that are marginalising and detracting from the immediate response necessitated by our climate emergency. Space Agencies are not the problem.