Re: (ReacTor) Five Utterly Convincing Reasons We Must Conquer Space!

On 11 Jul 2024 14:06:37 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll)
wrote:

Five Utterly Convincing Reasons We Must Conquer Space!
>
Ignore the economists, astronomers, and other naysayers--the time for
action is now!
>
https://reactormag.com/five-utterly-convincing-reasons-we-must-conquer-space/

I find your arguments cogent and well-reasoned. That does not mean,
however, that I find myself fully convinced by them.

Of course, though, everyone here knows that the _real_ reason we must
have domed colonies on Mars is the same reason why we must develop
flying cars! If people fail to see the necessity of this, they just
don't get it, and there's no use in trying to argue with them.

When it comes to the arguments you did present, though, I do find your
take on "Abundant Lunar Helium-3" and "Boundless Mineral Wealth"
completely convincing. Lunar Helium-3 may someday be useful in
powering ships to travel to other star systems, and thus shouldn't be
squandered on generating electricity on Earth even when we do acquire
the ability to use it.

As for "The Menace from the Sun" and "Andromeda", I am not 100%
convinced by your debunking of these as reasons; I am only 99.99%
convinced.

The part I find unconvincing is summed up in your sentence "Humans
have far more in common with Hallucigenia than whatever will call
Earth home by the time Andromeda arrives."

I expect the human race to face the question of survival with a
sufficiently determined effort to ensure success, so that even at that
far distant time, humans won't be replaced by more-evolved lizards or
more-evolved beetles or even more-evolved New World monkeys.

However, it may be pointed out that the way evolution works in the
real world is that new changes spread in small, isolated populations.
So even if _humans_ evolve, then not once, but multiple times, the
great mass of the human race will _still_ end up being replaced by the
descendants of a small group of upstarts who have been the
beneficiaries of some evolutionary advancement.

However, we have already developed a technology known as CRISPR which
shows how we can deal with this. When it comes to evolution, we are
now in a position to adopt the policy of No Child Left Behind.

Of course, though, _that_ also requires caution, because a new
evolutionary innovation which _seems_ promising might prove ultimately
fatal, so before we make a new innovation universal, we have to study
it thoroughly.

Given the long time scale, though, these reasons aren't arguments for
increasing spending on space exploration to any noticeable extent. All
we must do is keep civilization from collapsing until we are ready to
make an effort to expand into space, even if it takes millions of
years to get ready.

My most serious objections, therefore, are to the argument "Nuclear
War and Other Planetary-Scale Calamities".

Being on Mars, if one has had sufficient time to prepare, puts one at
a great advantage, compared to people on Earth, in setting up a
missile defense system to keep out Russian bombs or astronauts. It's
so far away that incoming missiles have a long way to go.

That Mars is even less hospitable than the Earth would be after a
nuclear war is also a weaker argument than you take it to be. The
problem with being on Earth is that you don't _only_ have the
environment to contend with. You have the surviving soldiers of the
other side, who may be making a determined effort to scour the Earth
of every vestige of freedom.

Even something as simple as an asteroid impact presents the issue that
we can't predict just _where_ and _how_ an asteroid will strike, and
so confidence that our technological civilization can be preserved in
such an event is not really attainable.

So establishing colonies on Mars, relatively soon, is a valid measure
to reduce risk.

John Savard