SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-a-kessler-syndrome-is-not-triggered-first dept.
Charlie Stross, a science fiction writer based in Scotland, has written a post about different possible approaches to space colonization. He includes a discussion of several different models.
While the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is evidently invalid, a weaker version—that language influences thought—is much harder to argue against. When we talk about a spaceship, a portmanteau word derived from "[outer] space" and "ship", we bring along certain unstated assumptions about shipping that are at odds with the physical parameters of a human-friendly life support environment for traversing interplanetary distances. Ships, in the vernacular, have captains and a crew who obey the captain via a chain of command, they carry cargo or passengers, they travel between ports or to a well-defined destination, they may have a mission whether it be scientific research or military. And of these aspects, only the scientific research angle is remotely applicable to any actually existing interplanetary vehicle, be it a robot probe like Psyche or one of the Apollo program flights.
(Pedant's footnote: while the Apollo crews had a nominal commander, actual direction came from Mission Control back on Earth and the astronauts operated as a team, along lines very similar to those later formalized as Crew Resource Management in commercial aviation.)
Anyway, a point I've already chewed over on this blog is that a spaceship is not like a sea-going vessel, can't be operated like a sea-going vessel, and the word "ship" in its name feeds into various cognitive biases that may be actively harmful to understanding what it is.
Which leads me to the similar term "space colony": the word colony drags in all sorts of historical baggage, and indeed invokes several models of how an off-Earth outpost might operate, all of which invoke very dangerous cognitive biases!
There are few more models which he missed.
Previously:
(2022) Moon Life 2030
(2022) Why Werner Herzog Thinks Human Space Colonization "Will Inevitably Fail"
(2020) Elon Musk Will Run Into Trouble Setting Up a Martian Government, Lawyers Say
(2018) Who Owns The Moon? A Space Lawyer Answers
(2017) Stephen Hawking Urges Nations to Pursue Lunar Base and Mars Landing
(2015) NASA Working on 3D Printers to Print Objects Using Martian Regolith
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday October 16 2024, @05:52PM (4 children)
Group 2 is just not that useful though. A lot of people can think of problems they can't easily solve. Here, it's not even that. Stross goes through a bunch of historical approaches to colonization (rather to colonization governance) and just criticizes them outright. What is missed is that each of them worked to some degree - some amazingly well. The Polynesian model, for example, is thought to have been in use from 2200 BC when the Philippines would have first been settled to 1000-1200 AD when Easter Island was settled. That's over 3000 years of successful colonization. Yet all Stross can talk about is that it has multiple failure modes:
My take is that group 1 can find real problems and solve them. Group 2 just isn't that useful especially when they're just inventing problems.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 17 2024, @03:19AM (3 children)
The major differences between space and Polynesia has to do with what is readily available when you show up somewhere:
1. Breathable air isn't the slightest bit of a problem in Polynesia. It's a major problem in space and any big rock not named "Earth" that we have a chance of getting to anytime soon.
2. Staying warm enough isn't a major problem in Polynesia: The Pacific Islands are mostly tropical, plus generally have abundant vegetation that can be used for firewood. Space doesn't have firewood, and is extremely cold (e.g. Mars is about -65C, making Antarctica look like paradise by comparison).
3. Fresh water is a solvable problem, from coconut milk to streams and the like. Plus any tools you develop to catch rainwater when it rains, which is frequently. Space mostly doesn't have fresh water about, and while you can recycle urine and such it's still something you have to concern yourself with and the system can break for all kinds of reasons.
4. Food is a very solvable problem in Polynesia - it grows wild on trees, plus is swimming in the sea, plus it can be cultivated, plus it can be hunted on land. There's basically no food natively available in space.
5. Building and crafting materials are plentiful and varied in Polynesia, suitable for making homes, tools, weapons, boats, etc. Building materials in space either consists of rocks, or nothing.
6. If you need to bail on a location, in Polynesia you can probably get to another island in a few days by boat if you can navigate well. Whereas once you're out of LEO, you're a long way from safety if you need to call it quits.
Space exploration is going to have a high body count. You're right that we might still be better off doing it, but it's also true that we have a very very long way to go in solving the engineering problems involved. We can't even get off the planet with a very high likelihood the ship wasn't damaged in the process.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 17 2024, @04:12AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 17 2024, @11:41AM (1 child)
Yes, they are engineering problems. And each one, except the distance, is solvable on its own.
The problem is the margin for error is much smaller. If you take all these problems, and imagine a well-engineered solution to them somehow crammed onto a ship and lifted into space along with your intrepid colonists, so far so good, right?
Now hit those well-engineered solutions with a few rocks so they don't work, which is a real risk in space. And your available materials to rig a solution to the problems you just got handed are more rocks if you're lucky, and the other parts of your ship. You have about 20 hours before you run out of breathable air, and you will get progressively stupider and less able to do things as that time passes. "Well, carry a spare." Fine, but that's doubled the cost of launching your craft, and the moment this problem repeats itself your spare is gone too.
Contrast that with being in the middle of the Pacific: You won't run out of breathable air, you can catch water if it rains, you can fish for food, and if you can make it to an island you are likely to be able to find materials that will be useful in fixing your boat. And there's also a very distinct possibility you'll find other people who might be willing and able to help you out, too. It's an environment where you have a lot more flexibility and ability to adapt to trouble.
Terrestrial colonization worked because there was stuff humans needed and could use where they were going. Space colonization for the most part does not have that.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 17 2024, @04:11PM
That still will be the case in space - the stuff humans need will be at those destinations. It's just a harder problem. That's all.