This is all fun, but I think the Mars idea isn't based on living space. It's based on diversifying humanity against X-risks. Which isn't something that interests me, or normies, much, but it has a lot of appeal to atheistic sci-fi male autists and adjacent types.
I think there's also a libertarian idea in there, an idea of starting civilization over with a clean slate. A settlement on Antarctica, even a self-sufficient one, could easily be bombed or invaded on a whim by any great power that cared to do so for anyone reason at all. But a hypothetical self-sufficient Mars colony, even if it only had a population in the thousands or tens of thousands, would quickly become practically impossible for Earth to enforce its whims upon through violence.
And the biggest X-risk is AI, which would easily chase down any space colonies we might set up.
The X-risk thing is a silly cope. People love the idea of space colonization because they have the drive to adventure, to explore, to settle new places. The stuff about X-risk is a post-hoc justification which is made up because the heroic impulse doesn't fit into boring modern liberal ideology.
I'm not a video watcher, but I had AI summarize that video. Again, fun thoughts.
I suppose I don't believe a self-sufficient Mars colony is a very realistic proposition. On the chance that we build a Mars colony, I would assign 99%+ probability to it being dependent on expensive support from Earth for the entirety of its existence, with the colony eventually being defunded. Hopefully in a way that doesn't guarantee death to everyone living there.
But if we imagine self-sufficiency IS achieved, and that there are no major breakthroughs in interplanetary propulsion in the meantime (which is my expectation: major progress in propulsion seems to be basically done), then I would suppose two things:
1. It would be really costly for Earth to blow the thing up.
2. There would be no real reason to do so because it's so far away and barely interacts with Earth.
Now, it's also kind of expensive for the US to bomb places on Earth. But not that expensive. So it can be done on a whim. In recent times, I'm thinking of things like the downfall of Gaddafi in Libya. But also taking out Noriega. If you're an earthly tin-pot dictator without a solid military backing you, the US can just eliminate you at the cost of an insignificant percentage of GDP and less than two dozen of its own lives. And not for any real reason of national interest; it can happen just because you're an ant that offended the gorilla with your existence and now the gorilla is going to squash you.
If Earth wanted to take out a Martian Noriega or Gaddafi, it would be a whole other matter. Especially if Earth didn't actually want to nuke the place and wipe out the entire colony. So now you need to send an invasion force, at enormous expense, probably have to build some space ships just for this purpose, and there's a good chance Mars will know about it far in advance and have a lot of time to prepare.
And for all that, there's surely someone on Earth that offends the attacking country considerably more, right? Actual real-world rivals to invest these resources into preparing for war against?
>And the biggest X-risk is AI, which would easily chase down any space colonies we might set up.
True.
>The X-risk thing is a silly cope. People love the idea of space colonization because they have the drive to adventure, to explore, to settle new places. The stuff about X-risk is a post-hoc justification which is made up because the heroic impulse doesn't fit into boring modern liberal ideology.
Fascinating stuff! I'm not convinced about the wild space calculations, but the idea of colonizing the Sahara Desert has always struck me as much more tractable than Mars. Any group rich enough to do it could easily afford to purchase the land (or just invade and steal it).
I'm not sure about that either :) Just generally I think you can't work backwards from people's existing behavior to reverse engineer a tiny mathematical model like that. I don't think the people who gain satisfaction from camping would find anything you've proposed a reasonable substitute.
We do not want to colonize space because it is practical. We want to colonize space because it is awesome.
Building apartments in Siberia just won’t stir the souls of Men out of their deep slumber. Every practical and utilitarian argument you make here is valid. But the drive to colonize space is driven primarily by the repressed religious libido. Manifest destiny knows no earthly bounds.
We don't need to build apartments in Siberia. We can build towns and villages and give each family some land to farm. There is enough land for millions of people.
Siberia is arguably the last Northern-type Frontier with untamed but arable land. It is a lot like Canada. It has not yet been colonised completely. A restored Russian monarchy, a favourable regime, could initiate a project to build a new Europe in Siberia...
This is all fun, but I think the Mars idea isn't based on living space. It's based on diversifying humanity against X-risks. Which isn't something that interests me, or normies, much, but it has a lot of appeal to atheistic sci-fi male autists and adjacent types.
I think there's also a libertarian idea in there, an idea of starting civilization over with a clean slate. A settlement on Antarctica, even a self-sufficient one, could easily be bombed or invaded on a whim by any great power that cared to do so for anyone reason at all. But a hypothetical self-sufficient Mars colony, even if it only had a population in the thousands or tens of thousands, would quickly become practically impossible for Earth to enforce its whims upon through violence.
Actually Earth would mop the floor with Mars in any plausible conflict scenario.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg8eJZ08_0Q&t=1034s
And the biggest X-risk is AI, which would easily chase down any space colonies we might set up.
The X-risk thing is a silly cope. People love the idea of space colonization because they have the drive to adventure, to explore, to settle new places. The stuff about X-risk is a post-hoc justification which is made up because the heroic impulse doesn't fit into boring modern liberal ideology.
I'm not a video watcher, but I had AI summarize that video. Again, fun thoughts.
I suppose I don't believe a self-sufficient Mars colony is a very realistic proposition. On the chance that we build a Mars colony, I would assign 99%+ probability to it being dependent on expensive support from Earth for the entirety of its existence, with the colony eventually being defunded. Hopefully in a way that doesn't guarantee death to everyone living there.
But if we imagine self-sufficiency IS achieved, and that there are no major breakthroughs in interplanetary propulsion in the meantime (which is my expectation: major progress in propulsion seems to be basically done), then I would suppose two things:
1. It would be really costly for Earth to blow the thing up.
2. There would be no real reason to do so because it's so far away and barely interacts with Earth.
Now, it's also kind of expensive for the US to bomb places on Earth. But not that expensive. So it can be done on a whim. In recent times, I'm thinking of things like the downfall of Gaddafi in Libya. But also taking out Noriega. If you're an earthly tin-pot dictator without a solid military backing you, the US can just eliminate you at the cost of an insignificant percentage of GDP and less than two dozen of its own lives. And not for any real reason of national interest; it can happen just because you're an ant that offended the gorilla with your existence and now the gorilla is going to squash you.
If Earth wanted to take out a Martian Noriega or Gaddafi, it would be a whole other matter. Especially if Earth didn't actually want to nuke the place and wipe out the entire colony. So now you need to send an invasion force, at enormous expense, probably have to build some space ships just for this purpose, and there's a good chance Mars will know about it far in advance and have a lot of time to prepare.
And for all that, there's surely someone on Earth that offends the attacking country considerably more, right? Actual real-world rivals to invest these resources into preparing for war against?
>And the biggest X-risk is AI, which would easily chase down any space colonies we might set up.
True.
>The X-risk thing is a silly cope. People love the idea of space colonization because they have the drive to adventure, to explore, to settle new places. The stuff about X-risk is a post-hoc justification which is made up because the heroic impulse doesn't fit into boring modern liberal ideology.
Probably also true.
I love those old paintings of the O'Neil cylinders.
Fascinating stuff! I'm not convinced about the wild space calculations, but the idea of colonizing the Sahara Desert has always struck me as much more tractable than Mars. Any group rich enough to do it could easily afford to purchase the land (or just invade and steal it).
Which part of the wild space calculations would you change?
I'm not sure about that either :) Just generally I think you can't work backwards from people's existing behavior to reverse engineer a tiny mathematical model like that. I don't think the people who gain satisfaction from camping would find anything you've proposed a reasonable substitute.
What is the ceiling was so high that you couldn’t see it?
It's about width too.
We do not want to colonize space because it is practical. We want to colonize space because it is awesome.
Building apartments in Siberia just won’t stir the souls of Men out of their deep slumber. Every practical and utilitarian argument you make here is valid. But the drive to colonize space is driven primarily by the repressed religious libido. Manifest destiny knows no earthly bounds.
I mostly agree, but building giant weather machines to turn Siberia into a hot jungle with mile tall skyscrapers is awesome as well.
We don't need to build apartments in Siberia. We can build towns and villages and give each family some land to farm. There is enough land for millions of people.
I can’t imagine why you would try to colonize an environment as hostile as space when we have an entire planet that was literally made for us.
The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot eternally live in the cradle.
-Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
Siberia is arguably the last Northern-type Frontier with untamed but arable land. It is a lot like Canada. It has not yet been colonised completely. A restored Russian monarchy, a favourable regime, could initiate a project to build a new Europe in Siberia...
I suspect that large-scale space colonization will happen after there are uploaded minds.
Doesn't count as colonization if there are just computers there.
But meat that thinks is somehow OK? What are you, some sort of meat chauvanist?