SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a paper published April 16th researchers make the case that we should designate and protect 85% of the solar system as 'protected wilderness'
We make a general argument that, as a matter of fixed policy, development should be limited to one eighth, with the remainder set aside. We argue that adopting a "one-eighth principle" is far less restrictive, overall, than it might seem. One eighth of the iron in the asteroid belt is more than a million times greater than all of the Earth's currently estimated iron ore reserves, and it may well suffice for centuries.
The rational for the limitation is more to do with the nature of human expansion rather than just protecting the environment of the rest of the solar system.
A limit of some sort is necessary because of the problems associated with exponential growth. We note that humans are poor at estimating the pace of such growth and, as a result, the limitations of a resource are hard to recognize before the final three doubling times. These three doublings take utilization successively from an eighth to a quarter, then to a half, and then to the point of exhaustion. Population growth and climate change are instances of unchecked exponential growth. Each places strains upon our available resources, each is a recognized problem that we would like to control, but attempts to do so at this comparatively late stage in their development have not been encouraging.
There are challenges and the authors point out that inaccessible resources, like Jupiter, should be excluded from the calculation and that more research is needed to even determine the amount of resources accessible with accuracy.
Assessing how many tons of potentially extractable resources are awaiting us on those worlds will require a lot more space exploration
Additionally, this is not a limit we are going to hit anytime soon
"Worldwide, the present rate of planetary mission launches is 15 per decade," the authors wrote. "At this rate, even just the nearly 200 worlds of the solar system that gravity has made spherical would take 130 years to visit once."
As an aside, it is not a given that resources in Jupiter are inaccessible with numerous articles on atmospheric mining and extraction approaches and even colonization of Jupiter available.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:15AM (14 children)
If you don't take those resources someone else will.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:25AM (1 child)
Who is that someone else here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 19 2019, @11:28AM
Any one of the 18 space-capable nations, or the others developing their own capability.
The 3 nations with successful manned launches under their belts (USA, Russia, China), they're 3 nations who will completely ignore everything from ratified treaties, academic papers to deep frowns and tutting fingers at the UN. Only Russia has a good chance of getting heavy kit out of earth orbit quickly to exploit solar system resources (and would probably do it just to annoy everyone else), nobody has any chance of enforcing any treaties outside of our gravity well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @07:29AM (8 children)
Thanks for illustrating exactly why we need strong government to regulate bad actors.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @10:34AM (6 children)
Insane.
Unless life is found (potential.. but doubtful) on asteroids... why does it matter?
Protecting the "environment", is to protect it so we, humans, don't die. And to protect it to "be nice" to other creatures on this Earth.
But what precisely is the reason to protect dead rock? More so, to protect it from mining, which would mean a *better* Earth?! One free of strip mining?
Moving our industrial base into space should be a key goal for any environmentalist. A space elevator too.
But no, how we have clowns all upset that dead rock might be touched.
It's like here in Quebec -- environmentalists get upset we might bill more dams. Wtf?! Dams are, by far, the most environmentally friendly option.
A dam doesn't have all the environmental manufacturing costs that solar does, and once in place? Doesn't kill birds endlessly, and slow down winds (with potential other impact as well), and lasts a LOOOOT longer than either.
And sure, a dam displaces as it creates a new shoreline.. but then other, different creates come to that new shoreline! You're not strip mining, and destroying nature, you're altering nature.
But the environmentalists scream, so then places like Ontario have to use *coal* to power things, because we only have so much power to sell. What. The. Fuck.
The real problem here is, some people will just complain over any change. They think man can somehow live, without making an impact.. but nothing on this earth can. Not microbe, or insect, or creature can.
All create homes. All impact their environment. Hell, many trees poison the earth around them, to prevent competitors from growing there! Beavers cause far more environmental change, as a whole, than hydro electric dams!
The list goes on.
So, the choice is ... what is the LEAST impact we can have.
Anyhow.
Point is.
These are fucking ROCKS with ZERO LIFE on them. FUCK OFF!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @01:23PM (2 children)
What short sighted greedy nonsense. Such attitudes are exactly why we have so many extinct species today and a variety of ecological emergencies. What about careless activity sending small asteroids out of the belt for potential collisions? What about toxic waste, what about some company putting space mines to protect their claim?
So many possibilities for humans to fuck shit up. Maybe try being less of a total individualistic total freedom type? Government is a required aspect forarge groups of humans living together, just get over it and focus on fixing the problems instead of wishing gov would disappear.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:28PM (1 child)
Isn't space itself a toxic wasteland? You can't go there without a bunch of PPE - Personal Protective Gear. Starting with your radiation-proof Mormon undies, available from that incorrigible capitalist, Mitt Romney.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 19 2019, @01:49PM
What I don't get, is how my post about Hydro Quebec, power dams, and dead rock, makes the poster above think I'm upset about the government?!
People in the know, would know that the Government of Quebec *owns and controls* Hydro Quebec, and here I'm advocating they *build more dams*. Huh? Guess I must really hate the government, yes?
Sometimes, dead rock is just dead rock. And the response to my statement, as far as I see, clarifies the problems some people have. The 'either/or' problem.
You see, there are two choices in some people's minds. All, or none. Everything must be protected environmentally, or nothing. Government must have regulations for everything, or nothing. Laws must be crafted for all behaviour, or none.
The person replying to my post seems to have this ... viewpoint. That if you don't want everything regulated, you must therefore want nothing regulated (eg, I must hate the government, and society).
Pure madness. True, real, genuine concern and care for the environment, for people, means you must assess each situation individually.
The most logical response to my post, was the person discussing the original article, and resource usage / finite availability. But good grief, can anyone think of a law from 1000AD that is still, unchanged, unvarnished, unmodified, that is a strong limiter today?
The very idea that:
- countries like the US, China, Canada, France, whatever will still exist in 1000 years, is illogical -- history shows otherwise.
Borders will be re-written, countries will fall/change, etc
- culture will remain constant...
Our grandchildren will think us quaint and stodgy.
Our 10/20th generation descendants will think that something we're doing now, today, that ALL Of us, every last one of us thinks is "good", is "horrible" and "insane".
Our decedents 1000 years hence, will have no idea wtf we were thinking, will have an entirely different culture, and won't even be able to reason with many decisions we make, how we live our lives, etc
- tech won't change both of the above
I mean, this entire concept of legislating something many, many hundreds or even thousands of years away, is sheer insanity.
Can you imagine someone at 1000AD, trying to decide if they should pass legislation for .. self driving cars? They already had self-driving cars, called "horses", and they worked very sensibly, when they knew the way home... of course, like today, driver attention couldn't wander too much. ;P
Or how about, people 1000 years ago deciding to legislate... hmm, data protection laws? Nano-tech? Autonomous / AI war machinery? Drones flying near airports?
So yes, let's try to pass legislation that people 300 years, 1000 years from now will .. what?
Just insane.
1000 years from now, we'll probably be spread all over the galaxy. Or maybe we'll have perfect energy -> mass conversion, coupled with some form of unlimited (literally) energy.
But we're going to try to legislate that? Wha?!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Saturday May 18 2019, @02:11PM (2 children)
I had most of the same thoughts when I saw the headline...However, the point in the article is not to protect rocks, the environment, space-amoeba, or the view from Kennebunkport.
It is an argument to protect limited (if extensive) resources from uncontrolled late stage expansion leading to exhaustion and the associated undesirable consequences to civilization.
Valid, partially valid, or codswallup, it's a different argument.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday May 18 2019, @02:44PM
It's the old Malthusian fear at work again. Uncontrolled population growth quickly exhausts resources, and then a collapse follows.
Except that, somehow, collapses are a lot less common than they ought to be, and when they do happen, it's because something else skewed things. I think that what Malthusian fear mongers have not appreciated is that life has evolved mechanisms to manage population. Some of these mechanisms predate human and animal life by a few billion years. Makes sense that life would evolve coping strategies for this problem. It can be argued that any organism which does not exercise restraint causes a collapse that hurts itself more than any other. If they don't all starve and die off right then and there, they are left greatly reduced in strength and numbers, ripe for replacement by competitors who were exercising restraint.
I hope that a formal, explicit agreement is not necessary. Enforcement will be rough to do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Sunday May 19 2019, @12:07AM
When you mine and use metal, or any other material, it doesn't get used up. It doesn't vanish or go away. Turn it all into rockets and space hotels; you can always turn it into something else later.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @10:39AM
BTW -- not faulting anyone parent in this thread, just the clown with the article.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 18 2019, @12:58PM
Until we can police the solar system, making rules protecting it as wilderness is pointless.
We can barely police our own planet; actually, while we might be physically able to - we seem to lack the political will.
Once space travelers become self-sufficient, there will be no stopping what they exploit until the Empire establishes order throughout the galaxy...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:33PM (1 child)
Or they will be destroyed when the sun goes red giant.
IMO just use them, and if needed we (hopefully) switch galaxy.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @07:35PM
If we can wait long enough, several galaxies will merge into the Milky Way, providing an infusion of potential resources that are much easier to access since they don't require intergalactic travel.
On that time scale, we should be extracting rotational energy from black holes and controlling whether or not matter should fall into a black hole.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:18AM (5 children)
Every interstellar asteroid [wikipedia.org] that enters the solar system should be redirected to orbit the Sun or another object in the solar system.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @11:39AM (4 children)
I'd say "yes", but leave that to people 10 or 20 generations from now..
Not because of the tech requirements, we *could* do it now, if we really, really put the who planet behind it.. but, just because it'll take us centuries, even with exponential growth, to get through the asteroid field.
I guess... well, with enhanced robotics, AI (not AGI), we could auto-mine and auto-build ships. But even then, if we 'spread out', then people will mine elsewhere!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @12:53PM (3 children)
Yes, it's something that will only happen centuries from now. Until that time, we can only watch (to the extent that we can detect it) money enter and exit the solar system, permanently.
If future population growth is low, zero, or negative, there is no resource problem. Also, by the time we are exploiting asteroids, we will have much better reduce/reuse/recycle mentality and technologies. If we believe Bezos, the big reason to do asteroid mining is so that we don't need to do deep mining and other industrial activity on Earth.
Regardless of future expansion, it is a good hedge for if we never achieve consistent interstellar travel. Gives us a steady stream of resources and allows us to study ejected fragments of distant solar systems.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:04PM (2 children)
I understand your view, but in my view if we don't either achieve interstellar travel (need not be fast, and slow has a lot to recommend it) or a system-wide government run by a friendly AI, then we'll soon be extinct. We've already had a few close calls. (That's one of the reasons I believe the multi-world quantum theory. We're in one of the world-lines where those wars didn't happen. There were a couple where avoiding mega-war was rather improbable, figured ahead of time.)
FWIW, I *think* fission power is enough for an ion-jet based space habitat to be mobile. Fusion would be better as fuel is easier to come by, and it would probably produce more power. The two problems (one really) are a stable nearly-closed eco-system and a stable socio-economic system. If we had those we could build something that would work today. It wouldn't be cheap or well-designed, but we could build the Fulton's steamboat model. https://www.thoughtco.com/robert-fulton-steamboat-4075444 [thoughtco.com]
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday May 19 2019, @07:17PM (1 child)
What is the extinction mechanism? Nukes? Bot armies? Disease? Supernova? I find most of them implausible and overhyped. But if we put people on the Moon, Mars, Titan, etc. we can give them the tools needed to return and repopulate the Earth if SHTF. Or at least hold out in place while Earth gets its act together (even if the whole planet is carpet bombed by nukes, some people will be sufficiently prepped and emerge from bunkers decades later).
For interstellar spacecraft, fusion is probably the way to go.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/04/04/rocket-powered-by-nuclear-fusion-could-send-humans-to-mars/ [washington.edu]
Antimatter would also be great... if we can come up with efficient ways of producing and containing it. You can just dump energy from large, efficient power stations on Earth into the process of antimatter creation, and load up spacecraft with what they need. Bonus if you can create a generator that runs on the remaining antimatter and allows you to run a robot factory or something on the target exoplanet.
The generation ship is unnecessary if we can perfect anti-aging and either keep people in stasis or find ways to entertain them for centuries (enter immersive VR worlds backed by next-level computing, storage, and yes, NPCs). Send them one or a few at a time, and you don't need a socio-economic system and damage to the spacecraft affects less people at once. Human production on site with an artificial womb is also an idea. Just spam them towards different habitable exoplanets and hope it works.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday May 19 2019, @11:17PM
It doesn't need to be total extermination, but anything that kills civilization will result in over 90% deaths, because we're far past carrying capacity even with modern tech, and with anything pre-amonia synthesis even is there's no crash below carrying capacity, the carrying capacity has been drastically reduced.
That said, a mega-war would with nukes involved would at best yield a nuclear autumn, so collapse of civilization combined with several years, possibly a decade, of no crops.
As for disease...one lab as publicly announced to have developed a strain of influenza that was readily air transmitted and 100% fatal within ferrets. And ferrets were chosen because their immune system was similar to humans WRT influenza.
Bot armies are a bit unlikely, though they might kill all networked computers. And I don't see us as having any control over a supernova...and the sun is quite unlikely to go that route, so it would need to be a star we were passing too close to. That's one that even interstellar colonies wouldn't necessarily be spared in, but it's also quite unlikely.
You left out "other". It *is* quite difficult to assess the probability, but it should always be included. That one could include things like a mistake in trying to capture an asteroid in orbit, but that's just one that's occurred to me, and there's no reason to think the rest of that category would be similar.
You can claim that civilization would recover, but if you lose two generations I really doubt it, and I have strong doubts even if you don't lose one. Could you mine the ore to build a generator? If you could, you're one of an extremely rare few. If you go back just one century most of humanity was devoted to survival most of the time. I expect that agriculture would survive as an idea, and some people would probably retain some of the skills involved. So it seems to me that after a really major disaster we're starting back slightly before the civilization of Ur of the Chaldees. Not quite, as worked metals will be a bit more available, but also not quite because available energy sources will be fewer. All the easy oil and coal will have been dug.
So it's really important that there be self sustaining colonies in, at minimum, remote parts of the solar system. Roaming interstellar space would be better.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Valkor on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:36AM (2 children)
pffft it'll take at least 85% of the solar system to make a half decent Dyson Sphere.
(Score: 2, Informative) by RandomFactor on Saturday May 18 2019, @02:29PM
btw- Dyson Swarm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlmKejRSVd8&t=2127s [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP44EPBMb8A [youtube.com]
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:07PM
A Dyson sphere isn't gravitationally stable. But see Dyson swarm. There you just need to keep all the orbits non-intersecting.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:54AM (2 children)
Designating it as 'protected wilderness' is all well and good... but how exactly do they plan on stopping the aliens from taking it?
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:57AM
United States Space Force
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by edIII on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:02AM
Duh. Space Wall.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Revek on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:01AM (7 children)
Have nothing to worry about. As a result we have to read about this crap.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:28AM
This is exactly what they said about population and climate before.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:33AM (3 children)
To be fair, we want to lay down the rules long before we contaminate the solar system with Earth microbes, or start exploiting asteroid resources on a massive scale.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Revek on Saturday May 18 2019, @04:07PM (2 children)
Rules that will be gamed by the powers that be. Rules that will be used to grant exclusions for a few so the many may not profit.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:04PM (1 child)
If you have rules and rich people, you can have space pirates.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:37PM
Coincidental anecdote.
This morning, while closing the plant, the acting supervisor advised the leads that NO ONE was to leave the plant, until the plant was cleaned from "stem to stern". I only exercise good radio discipline when I feel like it. I keyed up, "Ooooh, Navy talk! So, you're declaring this to be National Swab like a Pirate Day?" I heard both groans and laughter around me. :^)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:00PM (1 child)
I think we have plenty to worry about. This nonsense is just a distraction. We are on course to destroy ourselves and most existing advanced life long before we are able to have a significant impact on other worlds.
So, protecting a minimum of 85% of solar system is likely to happen without any changes to current human behavior.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:38PM
Yeah, we're on course to destroy ourselves - and some assholes insist on having fun along the way! There oughtta be a law!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:53AM
We have the same multinational and devoid of true ideology system that squanders limited resources (oil) and make abundant resources scarce by pollution (water, air, and technically the sun too). All the nation of the earth submit to it, in fact they are all taking the same decisions wrt technology privacy and surveillance, which should give you a hint.
The same system would like to enforce some rules governing the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources.
What will it mean for them? More money because of the rules privatizing profits and sharing expenses.
What will it mean for you? taxes.
The end.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday May 18 2019, @07:09AM
Before our Economy started to BOOM so tremendously. And we needed so much oil. So we opened up the ANWR, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. MAGA!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @07:34AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYOk9D0ZwVk [youtube.com] [youtube.com]
i loved that story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @07:38AM
Let anti-technology crowd make their own Internet and spread their propaganda only within its confines. On avian carriers.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @11:17AM (1 child)
I would say this article shows someone getting ahead of themselves.
Next topic: When individuals gain enough power thru technology to literally become gods, what laws will be needed to protect their worshippers?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @01:47PM
Yes, by this time we’ll have Elon jr. Musk, trumpeting his low cost interstellar starships. We need to make man multi-solar system.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by eravnrekaree on Saturday May 18 2019, @01:23PM (3 children)
The paper is insane and ludicrous. I would rather us have polluting industry on otherwise lifeless planets such as Jupiter, rather than to pollute the best habitable planet that we have. Designate a place such as Jupiter and Venus as "wilderness preserves"? What are there, giant whales living there? Give me a break, was this paper written by people on LSD? In some ways, the fact that the rest of the solar system is lifeless, is a huge asset to ourselves since we pretty much have the whole solar system to do with as we please and I would rather us mine a lifeless uninhabitable world rather than to damage the most habitable one we have. Even if there are microbes on those planets it should not stop us from exploiting their resources for our own uses and doing so to protect our habitable planet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @01:28PM
Sure, but rushing into things is how mistakes are made. Sure Jupiter is lifeless? What if human mining destroys the future development of a species? These are tough hypotheticals but as this comment section shows most humans are impulsive and would rather build their cool projects than worry about potential side effects. Hopefully we are alone in this galaxy otherwise it seems likely we'll accidentally start an interstellar war.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 18 2019, @04:05PM (1 child)
Where there are no Wilderbeests, there is no wilderness. Got to have beesties to have any wild.
(Score: 3, Touché) by HiThere on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:12PM
That's easily handled, just set up an Apache server. A Wildebeest is a GNU, right?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday May 18 2019, @02:35PM (5 children)
With the utmost of respect to the paper's authors, I disagree.
I have two justifications for this disagreement.
First, it would be a decision made in ignorance. This is equivalent to iron mining regulations prior to the invention of the steam engine. Any such regulations would be absolute nonsense compared to the capabilities enabled by mechanization. Space exploitation is in a similar infancy. Less than 500 kilos of space stuff has been returned to Earth, and the vast majority of that downmass was Apollo Lunar samples from the 1970s. I propose that we are functionally ignorant of what this industry should look like or what its capabilities could be. Regulations made in ignorance will be at best ineffective and at worst could choke an industry that is necessary for our long-term survival.
Second, I reject the notion of unbounded exponential growth. Global population growth is at 1.07% annual today and it is falling. If its derivative remains constant we'll be at negative population growth within two generations. I've long maintained that we need to expand beyond this planet to ensure the survival of our species. Knowing that I could see negative population growth within my lifetime is genuinely terrifying.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday May 18 2019, @02:56PM
I find the arguments on both sides of this to be interesting in how much they underestimate the size of our solar system. Even 15% of the solar system is still a mind-boggling amount of mass.
It isn't the resource constraint that I see as the problem; The problem I fear is the bureaucracy that springs up around this artificial scarcity.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:15PM (2 children)
Depending on how you implement this, it would have no effect on asteroid mining whatsoever. We probably can't blow through 15% of near-Earth asteroids anytime soon. If you are cheeky and include the mass of the Kuiper belt, none of the inner asteroids would make a dent, not even Ceres.
Current population growth rates might not be useful information. Put anti-aging, artificial wombs, cancer cures, etc. on the table, and the UN's population projections may not make sense anymore. Of course, maybe we would still see population declines even in a scenario where almost nobody is dying of old age. But that would be even scarier.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:54PM (1 child)
That's a story idea I've kicked around, many times. Earth authorities pass laws, and enforce population control, while Spacers are being fruitful and multiplying. Add in a matriarchal society, where the Grand Dame likes to keep her daughters, granddaughters, etc around, while exiling the males to go find their own mates elsewhere. When a Space Marine officer learns that her own daughter is one of the Dames great-great-great grand daughters - - - well - - - I think there's a helluva story in there. ;^) Oh yeah - the Grand Dame is planning on moving her habitat out of this solar system, to escape earth authoritarian meddling, so she is actively seeking out her female descendants, is how our Marine officer learns about all of this.
Think I should retire, and take up writing?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @07:30PM
You should talk to mcgrew before quitting your day job.
In the initial years, there's going to be some ethical outcry about conceiving and giving birth to kids outside of Earth's 1g gravity and low radiation environment. Mars gravity or spinning habitats, and sufficient shielding could alleviate those concerns. But you're still making the decision to raise a kid in places that are harsher to live in than Antarctica or other deserts. Not to mention you have to live indoors or suited up 24/7. Terraforming or elaborate orbital habitats could make things better, but there will be a lot of IRL bitching about this. Maybe Martian gravity will result in screwed up skeletal development. Maybe humans will be genetically engineered to help adapt to lower gravity.
It could be that there are some built-in limits that stop an off-Earth population explosion from happening anytime soon. Imagine the stress of raising a kid in a habitat where fiddling around with controls, leaving the "front door" open, or being a pyromaniac results in the death of every single person on board. Sterilization or sex bots will probably be the norm.
Artificial wombs will go a long way to ensuring that both matriarchal and patriarchal insular societies spring up. No child-bearing women will be required. At some point, no sperm or eggs (men or women) will be required (and a book accidentally falling onto a keyboard could initiate the entire process if everything was automated). Anybody will be able to spin up a baby created using the available DNA on file.
In this scenario, you don't need to exile males because you don't create them in the first place. You control which chromosomes make the cut.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:46PM
We already have negative growth among some populations. The Chinese took the bull by the horns, and mandated it. It is anybody's guess how soon that blip gets smoothed over. Europe and people of European ancestry have negative growth - part of the reason money-people try to justify uncontrolled immigration.
Other, smaller, populations have had zero growth or negative growth for a long time already. Australian aboriginees, most Native American tribes - North, South, and Central American tribes. Catholics and Moslems breed like rabbits, but pretty much everyone else is way down there.
(Score: 1) by Chocolate on Saturday May 18 2019, @02:46PM (3 children)
All territories moons objects including the planet currently known as "Saturn" or at least until I think up a better name are now MINE as of right now. Everyone can keep their mitts off. No mining. No tourists. No space junk. Saturn is mine. All mine. I have not decided on my new title to go with this new chunk of real estate. Applications for citizenship will be rejected automatically for awhile at least until my new bastion of civilization is built up a bit.
I love this new policy of just claiming ownership of stuff.
Has anyone claimed Uranus yet?
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 18 2019, @04:06PM (1 child)
Aristarchus.
(Score: 1) by Chocolate on Sunday May 19 2019, @09:55AM
He can bugger off and stake his own claim. Lots of planets left!
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @04:07PM
"Has anyone claimed Uranus yet?"
No, it's still open.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 18 2019, @09:00PM (1 child)
As far as we know, Earth is the only place in the solar system that supports life. Everything else is lifeless. So if we spread life to other parts of the solar system, then we're doing a profoundly important thing. If, through human agency, flowers come to bloom in the Hellas Planitia it would be profoundly beautiful.
Viewed from that lens, anything we might do in the solar system and anywhere we might go would be huge strides for Team Life.
One caveat though. Hey everybody, fellow humans, if we happen upon something really amazing like the Grand Canyon or Angel Falls (as seen from the human perspective on the ground, of course), let's not destroy it to mine space gold, OK?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Chocolate on Sunday May 19 2019, @10:00AM
Are you going to stand on an asteroid waving a placard asking people nicely not to mine the space gold?
Bit-choco-coin anyone?