Technology, Science and the Environment.

[lcfc old boy]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I hear that, believe me, and if governmental agencies were moving forward with more alacrity than I'd agree more myself.

 

But the way I see it is every single spaceflight mission - manned or otherwise - tells us something new that might help us progress on that front. And that's bloody important, because if we don't get out there soon enough, something will happen here - with or without human help and no matter how well we "take care" of this planet - which will make sure we never will. We can and should be fixing what we're doing to the Earth as well as doing stuff like this but there is no "fixing" the end of the current interglacial period or Yellowstone deciding to go for it, for instance.

 

I can understand the antipathy and I'd rather spaceflight be under the aegis of governments exclusively, but unfortunately the past few decades have been very slow on that score and so it is better more spaceflight programs no matter their providence than less, IMO. Civilisational survival, in whatever form, depends on it.

 

and the way i see it is , its all for profit  what has branson contributed to the space race that nasa did not already know he went for a jolly up in the air to advertise virgin and the media followed him around like he was some pioneer , and now in these dark days of austerity,  we will soon have people paying astronomical amounts of money per trip to say they have been into space , also as a side note yuri gagarin actually went into space sixty years

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

The unspoken elephant. 

 

The planet is as capable of displacing or killing millions and millions as we are. 

More capable. Much more capable, if my own judgement is right.

 

8 minutes ago, lcfc old boy said:

and the way i see it is , its all for profit  what has branson contributed to the space race that nasa did not already know he went for a jolly up in the air to advertise virgin and the media followed him around like he was some pioneer , and now in these dark days of austerity,  we will soon have people paying astronomical amounts of money per trip to say they have been into space , also as a side note yuri gagarin actually went into space sixty years

I can certainly understand that point of view.

 

Personally, I think that the fact that the last time we went to the Moon is almost 50 years ago now is a matter of utmost shame - not on those that organised it before and those that organise spaceflight now, but on those who hold the attitudes that have through various politicking limited their resources and held them back for so long.

 

Something needs to change - whether that's driven by governmental entities as a response to this new era, whether it's the private companies doing it or whether it's a bit of both I'm not massively fussed - just, someone, somehow get the fvck out there. In numbers, and rapidly.

 

It's long, long past time.

[nnfox]

Latest editions of Climate Check with a focus on the North American heatwave:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/57868861

 

And the European floods https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/57901692

[Pliskin]

Spent the evening sat on Brancaster beach with the dog, watching the sun set just thinking what’s next? Are the wind turbines on the horizon enough to help us? Will the superpowers countries of this world do enough to reverse the damage they cause. 
 

Will we a as humans learn to slow down, and remember that water is more precious than money? I fear for the future I really do, I’m not sure we’re capable of turning it around, some monstrous sacrifices will need to be made, but where financial loss is a possibility, will we do it?  

[Jon the Hat]

9 hours ago, Pliskin said:

Spent the evening sat on Brancaster beach with the dog, watching the sun set just thinking what’s next? Are the wind turbines on the horizon enough to help us? Will the superpowers countries of this world do enough to reverse the damage they cause. 
 

Will we a as humans learn to slow down, and remember that water is more precious than money? I fear for the future I really do, I’m not sure we’re capable of turning it around, some monstrous sacrifices will need to be made, but where financial loss is a possibility, will we do it?  

I mean if you have enough money there is enough water.  Desalination is getting cheaper already.

[SpacedX]

[SpacedX]

47 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I mean if you have enough money there is enough water.  Desalination is getting cheaper already.

Water scarcity is a huge problem facing the planet. While the world's population has soared, the amount of freshwater on the planet has stayed constant. Water use has grown more than twice the rate of population increase in the last century alone. Today nearly 1b people worldwide suffer from water scarcity and that number is expected to grow to 1.8 billion by the end of the decade. Many of the water systems that keep ecosystems thriving and feed a growing human population are now stressed. Rivers, lakes and aquifers are drying up or becoming too polluted to use. More than half the world’s wetlands have disappeared. Agriculture consumes more water than any other source and wastes much of that through inefficiencies. Climate change is altering patterns of weather and water around the world, causing shortages and droughts in some areas and floods in others.

 

Desalination is not a silver bullet - it's not even a sticking plaster. Getting cheaper???? - the plants are exorbitantly expensive and require huge amounts of energy, it is environmentally damaging plus it is only really viable for coastal communities. Reverse osmosis is arguably the most viable, but all desalination methods produce a concentrated waste product composed of the salts found in seawater and chemicals consumed in the process. Disposal methods for the concentrate include dumping it back in the ocean, injecting it into deep underground wells, storing it in above-ground evaporation ponds, and zero-liquid discharge procedures that produce a solid waste product.

 

Seawater desalination is one of the most expensive sources of fresh water. The total costs of desalination, including the costs of planning, permitting, and concentrate management, are astronomical, both in absolute terms and in comparison with the costs of other alternatives. As I mentioned, brine production and high-energy consumption are massive downsides of desalination. Disposal of toxic brine is not cheap or straightforward and involves a range of negative environmental impacts.

 

Conservation and recycling programs are usually much less expensive and less risky alternatives to building desalination plants.

 

Excuse the rant, very much opposed to this. 

 

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-year-old-viruses-tibetan-glacier-ice.html

 

Wasn't this the backstory to The Talos Principle?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57938858

 

TLDR:

 

Why is the Great Barrier Reef in trouble? Because of a problem too many people either don't think exists or find personally convenient to ignore.

[SpacedX]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57978465

[Buce]

53 minutes ago, Line-X said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57978465

 

All well and good but the money would be better spent on other things, like combating global warming for example.

 

Space flight has become another rich men's plaything.

 

Personally, I find this rush to 'colonize' other planets (which is never going to happen in any meaningful sense) somewhat distasteful while we continue to destroy the perfectly good one that we have.

Edited 27 July 2021 by Buce

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

All well and good but the money would be better spent on other things, like combating global warming for example.

 

Space flight has become another rich men's plaything.

 

Personally, I find this rush to 'colonize' other planets (which is never going to happen in any meaningful sense) somewhat distasteful while we continue to destroy the perfectly good one that we have.

We've discussed this before.

 

Firstly, it's possible, and pretty much certain for civilisational survival, to do both. Earth isn't going to remain perfectly good forever, no matter what we might do, short of an advancement in tech that would mean terraforming is available elsewhere too. Such things are possible - we got from powered flight to the moon in 66 years, what night we do in 660, let alone longer? 

 

Secondly, IMO this isn't a zero sum game and one doesn't have to be chosen above the other anyway.

 

What is distasteful for me is the tacit assumption that humanity is doomed in much shorter order than might otherwise happen by getting out there in whatever way.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

We've discussed this before.

 

Firstly, it's possible, and pretty much certain for civilisational survival, to do both. Earth isn't going to remain perfectly good forever, no matter what we might do, short of an advancement in tech that would mean terraforming is available elsewhere too. Such things are possible - we got from powered flight to the moon in 66 years, what night we do in 660, let alone longer? 

 

Secondly, IMO this isn't a zero sum game and one doesn't have to be chosen above the other anyway.

 

What is distasteful for me is the tacit assumption that humanity is doomed in much shorter order than might otherwise happen by getting out there in whatever way.

 

And we've agreed to disagree before.

 

But since you want to rehash it, I don't see humanity's survival, characterised by a few hundred people living in a dome on Mars, as being worthy of the wealth and resources being ploughed into it, especially while we treat our own planet with such contempt.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't wish the Human race on anywhere else.

[SpacedX]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

All well and good but the money would be better spent on other things, like combatting global warming for example.

 

Personally, I find this rush to 'colonize' other planets (which is never going to happen in any meaningful sense) somewhat distasteful while we continue to destroy the perfectly good one that we have.

I understand your contention and @leicsmac has previously eloquently articulated the case for investment in space exploration far better than myself. A few points though, if I may.

 

I posted the link because I am very critical of the 'space tourism' folly which I regard as a colossal waste of money. I knew that Blue Origin had bid for involvement in Project Artemis and am encouraged to see this news as opposed to a pointless parabolic punt to the edge of space. 

 

One of the reasons that the manned space programme has squandered the best part of 50 years in near earth orbit was due to premature curtailment of the Apollo programme. Yes, this was due mounting public pressure that the money was better spent on earth - but also due to a lack of political will. 

 

There is now a huge impetus behind private sector involvement in space exploration which is irrepressible. This is immeasurably more far reaching that the 'New Shepard' or 'Virgin Galactic' vanity projects. Throughout the world, there is no shortage of human suffering. Poverty, disease, war, natural disasters, and the increased turmoil wreaked through climate change. There is an understandable pressure to cut funding of space programmes given the immediacy of our situation - to divert more to humanitarian needs. But this doesn't simply pertain to space exploration - one the first places that comes up in conversation is "extraneous" spending on what is deemed to be unnecessary scientific research. What good is it to conduct microgravity experiments when children are starving? Why smash particles together or pursue the lowest possible temperatures when Puerto Rico is still without a power grid? And why study the nuances of mating habits amongst species of birds when nuclear war again threatens our planet? So where does it stop?

 

I would contend that this is myopic in the extreme and neglects the fact that our greatest problems require long-term investment and investing in science is investing in the betterment and future of humanity. This vision is likely to continue to be largely private sector driven. In our modern world, we're often looking for instant gratification, for a near-term reward or return, and for immediate improvement. But science isn't always like that - the benefits are often concealed or intangible - a value of things that don't directly and immediately affect us. It is important to factor in the benefit of all humanity in total when we consider what is right and what is wrong.

 

It is also our destiny as sentient beings and the future of humanity. The current pandemic is a reminder of our fragility and vulnerability as a species. As @leicsmac put it on the coronavirus thread, nature needs no excuse to consign us to a fossil record and an eventual extinction event is assured - whilst a civilisation ending catastrophe far closer to home. 

 

Ultimately all life, the elements from which we are composed, was forged in the crucibles of a stars, slung out by supernovae and re-germinated through interplanetary nebulae. We came from the stars, we were seeded by the stars and we will return there. 

 

 

 

Edited 27 July 2021 by Line-X

[RoboFox]

On 21/07/2021 at 10:12, Line-X said:

 

(sorry to lower the tone)

Edited 27 July 2021 by RoboFox

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I understand your contention and @leicsmac has previously eloquently articulated the case for investment in space exploration far better than myself. A few points though, if I may.

 

I posted the link because I am very critical of the 'space tourism' folly which I regard as a colossal waste of money. I knew that Blue Origin had bid for involvement in Project Artemis and am encouraged to see this news as opposed to a pointless parabolic punt to the edge of space. 

 

One of the reasons that the manned space programme has squandered the best part of 50 years in near earth orbit was due to premature curtailment of the Apollo programme. Yes, this was due mounting public pressure that the money was better spent on earth - but also due to a lack of political will. 

 

There is now a huge impetus behind private sector involvement in space exploration which is irrepressible. This is immeasurably more far reaching that the 'New Shepard' or 'Virgin Galactic' vanity projects. Throughout the world, there is no shortage of human suffering. Poverty, disease, war, hurricanes, and the increased turmoil wreaked through climate change. There is an understandable pressure to cut funding of space programmes given the immediacy of our situation - to divert more to humanitarian needs. But this doesn't simply pertain to space exploration - one the first places that comes up in conversation is "extraneous" spending on what is deemed to be unnecessary scientific research. What good is it to conduct microgravity experiments when children are starving? Why smash particles together or pursue the lowest possible temperatures when Puerto Rico is still without a power grid? And why study the nuances of mating habits amongst species of birds when nuclear war again threatens our planet? So where does it stop?

 

I would contend that this is myopic in the extreme and neglects the fact that our greatest problems require long-term investment and investing in science is investing in the betterment and future of humanity. This vision is likely to continue to be largely private sector driven. In our modern world, we're often looking for instant gratification, for a near-term reward or return, and for immediate improvement. But science isn't always like that - the benefits are often concealed or intangible - a value of things that don't directly and immediately affect us. It is important to factor in the benefit of all humanity in total when we consider what is right and what is wrong.

 

It is also our destiny as sentient beings and the future of humanity. The current pandemic is a reminder of our fragility and vulnerability as a species. As @leicsmac put it on the coronavirus thread, nature needs no excuse to consign us to a fossil record and an eventual extinction event is assured - whilst a civilisation ending catastrophe far closer to home. 

 

Ultimately all life, the elements from which we are composed, was forged in the crucibles of a stars, slung out by supernovae and re-germinated through interplanetary nebulae. We came from the stars, we were seeded by the stars and we will return there. 

 

 

 

 

Excuse me for not wanting to debate this all over again - I'm fully aware of your and Mac's beliefs on this, and nothing I say will change them - but I would like to comment on the bolded bit.

 

Given the inconceivable distances involved and the limits of physics, how do you think this might happen?

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

And we've agreed to disagree before.

 

But since you want to rehash it, I don't see humanity's survival, characterised by a few hundred people living in a dome on Mars, as being worthy of the wealth and resources being ploughed into it, especially while we treat our own planet with such contempt.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't wish the Human race on anywhere else.

 

Fair enough.

 

Despite my own rather cynical outlook and and what humans have done,I can't reach that level of misanthropy myself.

 

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I understand your contention and @leicsmac has previously eloquently articulated the case for investment in space exploration far better than myself. A few points though, if I may.

 

I posted the link because I am very critical of the 'space tourism' folly which I regard as a colossal waste of money. I knew that Blue Origin had bid for involvement in Project Artemis and am encouraged to see this news as opposed to a pointless parabolic punt to the edge of space. 

 

One of the reasons that the manned space programme has squandered the best part of 50 years in near earth orbit was due to premature curtailment of the Apollo programme. Yes, this was due mounting public pressure that the money was better spent on earth - but also due to a lack of political will. 

 

There is now a huge impetus behind private sector involvement in space exploration which is irrepressible. This is immeasurably more far reaching that the 'New Shepard' or 'Virgin Galactic' vanity projects. Throughout the world, there is no shortage of human suffering. Poverty, disease, war, hurricanes, and the increased turmoil wreaked through climate change. There is an understandable pressure to cut funding of space programmes given the immediacy of our situation - to divert more to humanitarian needs. But this doesn't simply pertain to space exploration - one the first places that comes up in conversation is "extraneous" spending on what is deemed to be unnecessary scientific research. What good is it to conduct microgravity experiments when children are starving? Why smash particles together or pursue the lowest possible temperatures when Puerto Rico is still without a power grid? And why study the nuances of mating habits amongst species of birds when nuclear war again threatens our planet? So where does it stop?

 

I would contend that this is myopic in the extreme and neglects the fact that our greatest problems require long-term investment and investing in science is investing in the betterment and future of humanity. This vision is likely to continue to be largely private sector driven. In our modern world, we're often looking for instant gratification, for a near-term reward or return, and for immediate improvement. But science isn't always like that - the benefits are often concealed or intangible - a value of things that don't directly and immediately affect us. It is important to factor in the benefit of all humanity in total when we consider what is right and what is wrong.

 

It is also our destiny as sentient beings and the future of humanity. The current pandemic is a reminder of our fragility and vulnerability as a species. As @leicsmac put it on the coronavirus thread, nature needs no excuse to consign us to a fossil record and an eventual extinction event is assured - whilst a civilisation ending catastrophe far closer to home. 

 

Ultimately all life, the elements from which we are composed, was forged in the crucibles of a stars, slung out by supernovae and re-germinated through interplanetary nebulae. We came from the stars, we were seeded by the stars and we will return there. 

 

 

 

Yeah, if I wasn't at work this is what I'd say too.

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

I don't see humanity's survival, characterised by a few hundred people living in a dome on Mars, as being worthy of the wealth and resources being ploughed into it, especially while we treat our own planet with such contempt.

But this is a preliminary step. The future of our species depends upon sustainability and put simply, this rock is not sustainable. 

 

14 minutes ago, Buce said:

Frankly, I wouldn't wish the Human race on anywhere else.

Humanity isn't all bad, just as it isn't pure or virtuous. 

 

We are capable of the most wonderful deeds, technology, enlightenment, music, art and literature. Unfortunately we are also prone to destruction and we inhabit an inequitable world of our ow making and perpetuation. I have always believed that humanity should strive for its own betterment and change starts with the individual. At the risk of invoking fridge magnet philosophy, Mahatma Gandhi famously said "be the change you wish to see in the world" - only he didn't - it's just convenient for the purposes of fitting on a bumper sticker or meme. Here's what he actually said - 

 

"We mirror the world. All the tendencies of the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies of the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him"

 

I digress, but ultimately I would argue that far from polluting and adulterating the cosmos, our expansion into it would be for the betterment of humanity. It's likely that this would be spearheaded by, or even solely in the form of AI - the sum and preservation of all human knowledge and endeavor. As biological beings, we are not predisposed to the harshness and vastness of deep space.  

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

Given the inconceivable distances involved and the limits of physics, how do you think this might happen?

Great question - see previous post. 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Great question - see previous post. 

 

So your vision of us 'returning' to the stars isn't quite what it seems.

 

Humanity is living as a prisoner of physics - destined to remain in the Solar system until its inevitable destruction - or, more likely, until we make Earth uninhabitable. We have largely destroyed a pristine environment in the blink of a cosmological eye because industrial and technological evolution has progressed faster than humanity has. In an evolutionary timescale, we are just out of the trees and, frankly, behave as such.

 

Drawing on the Gaia analogy, Humanity is a cancer destroying its host.

[SpacedX]

45 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

So your vision of us 'returning' to the stars isn't quite what it seems.

 

It's not "my vision" - it's essential for the perpetuation of the sum of knowledge and achievement of all humanity that in the immediate term, we get off this rock and establish colonies and outposts. Beyond that we may evolve differently and expansion - perhaps even biological and genetic seeding of the galaxy - may be under the direction of AI. It is very likely that colonisation of the stars assumes a form beyond our comprehension.  

 

45 minutes ago, Buce said:

Humanity is living as a prisoner of physics - destined to remain in the Solar system until its inevitable destruction - or, more likely, until we make Earth uninhabitable.

As I said, nature itself could instantly render the earth "uninhabitable" overnight.

 

Regarding physical laws, again we are discussing the immediate preservation of the human race and ultimately the long-term destiny "amongst the stars" (repeat in the style of Brian Cox). Our evolution would then be on a very different course. Regarding the solar system, we have 5 billion years until our star begins the helium burning phase and becomes a red giant. We will have long vacated by then. Within 4.3 billion years our galaxy is set for a full on collision with Andromeda, so the point is moot. (Although current studies are suggesting 6 billion years). Whatever form humanity has assumed it will need to have become intergalactic by then. These distances are incomprehensibly vast, The technology required to travel between galaxies is far beyond humanity's present capabilities, and currently only the subject of speculation, conjecture, and purely in the realms of theoretical physics, science fiction and fantasy. The vastness of time and space is the reason why we haven't been visited or detected other highly evolved lifeforms in spite of the fact that I am certain that the cosmos is teeming with sentient life. So why then should we be different? Perhaps this is indeed beyond the physical capability of any species. However, theoretically speaking, there is nothing to conclusively indicate that by then intergalactic travel would be impossible. Human spaceflight at its current speed would require either that we overcome our own mortality by harnessing technologies such as radical life suspension or purely AI. Einstein postulated that the speed of light is physically our cosmic speed limit and the paradoxes involved in exceeding this are demonstrable. Alcubierre drives and wormholes are purely the province of theoretical physics. That said, if traveling at a speed approaching the speed of light, time dilation would allow intergalactic travel in a timespan of decades of on-ship time. Another interesting notion is establishing a colony around a hypervelocity star. 

 

45 minutes ago, Buce said:

We have largely destroyed a pristine environment in the blink of a cosmological eye because industrial and technological evolution has progressed faster than humanity has. In an evolutionary timescale, we are just out of the trees and, frankly, behave as such.

And again, in the blink of a 'cosmic eye' we could be consigned to a fossil record.

 

The pace of technical progression is indeed outstripping resources but also the ethics to govern it. As Malthusian as it seems, I am also reminded of the Dutch economist Ester Boserup who opined that "necessity is the Mother of invention". Whichever way you look at it, our future on this planet is not sustainable. We either reach out into space, or we cease to exist as a species. 

 

45 minutes ago, Buce said:

Drawing on the Gaia analogy, Humanity is a cancer destroying its host.

And its removal is the key. Unfortunately in the meantime, nature may see to that herself. 

Edited 27 July 2021 by Line-X

[Carl the Llama]

Yeah I share @Buce's lack of optimism and will always refer to this monologue on the topic:

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yeah I share @Buce's lack of optimism and will always refer to this monologue on the topic:

 

I sit on the fence here.

 

Yes, what Smith says might make sense, by humanity has the potential to be so much more, and the future generations deserve the chance to try. What Line-X said above about humanity carrying both immense grace and immense depravity is true, and IMO that grace is worth preserving more than the depravity makes us worthy of our own destruction.

[Carl the Llama]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I sit on the fence here.

 

Yes, what Smith says might make sense, by humanity has the potential to be so much more, and the future generations deserve the chance to try. What Line-X said above about humanity carrying both immense grace and immense depravity is true, and IMO that grace is worth preserving more than the depravity makes us worthy of our own destruction.

For me it's less a case of describing what we deserve or suggesting we can do no good, just a brief glance at human history shows we are patently capable of incredible things, there are vast numbers of people absolutely do not deserve to see their own species blindly stumble towards disaster.  It's more an observation that as a whole we move inexorably in that direction despite the best efforts of our best folk.  Our economic model ensures it. 

 

Imo it would require a pie in the sky global adoption of socialist policy reforms which disincentivise chasing profits through excessive generation of products and the massive amounts of waste that come with it for us to even stand a chance in the long term.  This applies to pretty much any industry I can think of but chief concerns are things like e-waste and vehicles where so much pollution gets created through the extraction of precious metals, factory production, transportation, only to see tonnes and tonnes of this products end up sitting unused in warehouses or worse sent to landfill, the valuable resources contained within now requiring re-extraction at a further energy and pollution cost should somebody deem it profitable to do so.  You see it in hospitality and food where tonnes of plastic and foil wrapped individual food items get sent to landfill on a daily basis. Any capitalist industry requires excess production and waste in the name of maximising sales potential.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

For me it's less a case of describing what we deserve or suggesting we can do no good, just a brief glance at human history shows we are patently capable of incredible things, there are vast numbers of people absolutely do not deserve to see their own species blindly stumble towards disaster.  It's more an observation that as a whole we move inexorably in that direction despite the best efforts of our best folk.  Our economic model ensures it. 

 

Imo it would require a pie in the sky global adoption of socialist policy reforms which disincentivise chasing profits through excessive generation of products and the massive amounts of waste that come with it for us to even stand a chance in the long term.  This applies to pretty much any industry I can think of but chief concerns are things like e-waste and vehicles where so much pollution gets created through the extraction of precious metals, factory production, transportation, only to see tonnes and tonnes of this products end up sitting unused in warehouses or worse sent to landfill, the valuable resources contained within now requiring re-extraction at a further energy and pollution cost should somebody deem it profitable to do so.  You see it in hospitality and food where tonnes of plastic and foil wrapped individual food items get sent to landfill on a daily basis. Any capitalist industry requires excess production and waste in the name of maximising sales potential.

That situation is exactly what it is, yes.

 

The only thought to the contrary I can offer is that such a change is possible and I'll believe that until they put me to bed with a shovel.