thejdizzler
7d ago
AGI can't overcome fundamental biophysical constraints. If something is impossible given our energy/ecological/human resources, it will not happen, no matter how much intelligence we throw at it.
thejdizzler
7d ago
I agree, and this is why I switched my major from aero/astro to biology (and ecology) in college. Self-sustaining biological systems are the most interesting research topic out there right now IMO.
thejdizzler
7d ago
Fair point about the energy utilization, although I think ecology is still quite important. Runaway viral infections of humans or crops could completely derail this kind of system.
As I said in a reply to another person, and another commenter has said to you, the frontier is not a good metaphor for a Mars colony. Rules and regulations will be extremely tight for survival reasons, and the kind of person who would go to the frontier in the past would not do very well at all in an environment that is far stricter than almost any society on earth.
I think it's ludicrous to imagine that colonists will be in any sense independent from earth, at least for the first few decades. It's not like the American West where you go be a trapper or homesteader and survive without external supplies. On Mars we will need continuous shipments from Earth and tightly regulated social systems. This is why I don't think the frontier metaphor is apt at all. Space isn't a release valve for societies independent weirdos, it's an extremely inhospitable environment that will require massive coordination to face.
thejdizzler
7d ago
Well we could do this, but for this purpose, we don't need an asteroid full of gold at all! We already have crypto for something like this. In order for the asteroid metal to be valuable we have to get it to earth. Otherwise it's just another store of value, which we can do without the hassle of asteroid mining.
thejdizzler
7d ago
Well a house would reduce my "spending" considerably. My biggest monthly expenses is rent. A house could turn this into a zero, or potentially positive category for me.
thejdizzler
7d ago
Interstellar colonization is likely impossible. I think this is a terrible goal to husband our resources towards.
This isn't an argument. Just saying "believe in greatness harder" doesn't help address ecological or motivational reasons why we might not be able to do whatever you define as greatness.
It's also not my responsibility to define an alternative vision in a polemical post. I have one, which is centered around building a steady state economy and ecology, but it's not relevant to my argument here.
thejdizzler
7d ago
Contra sapce colonization
A couple arguments against space colonization, in order of how convincing they are to me. A lot of arguments in favor of space colonization like to make specious arguments based on the proposed similarity between the colonization of the Americas and Mars/Venus/Moons of Jupiter. While potentially highlighting psychologically similar explorer mindsets, I think these arguments completely miss the physical realities of space.
1. Ecology and Biology
The newest Tom Murphy post from DoTheMath has clarified what I believe to be a huge blindspot in the space colonization narrative that many on this forum: Ecology! Murphy's argument is that we've never successfully created a sealed, self-sustaining ecology that lasts for even anything close to a human lifespan. Biosphere 2 lasted for approximately 16 months, and the EcoSphere that Murphy uses as an example in this article lasts for about 10 years, but ultimately collapses because the shrimp fail to reproduce. Both of these "sealed" examples occur on Earth, shielded from radiation, and in moderate ambient temperatures. This will not be the case on Mars, nor on the 9 month journey to the Red Planet.
Even outside of sealed environments, island ecologies on Earth are notoriously unstable because of population bottlenecks that eliminate genetic diversity and make key species vulnerable to freak viruses or environmental disruption.
Of course a Mars colony won't be an ecological island, at least at first, because of constant shipments from Earth of supplies and genetic material (humans, bacteria, crops, etc.). But unless the colony can eventually become self-sustaining, I'm not sure what the point of "colonization" actually is. It's not clear that mammals can even reproduce in low gravity environments, and barring a large scale terraforming effort that would likely take millennia, any Mars colony will be a extraterrestrial version of Biosphere 2 without the built in radiation shielding and pleasant ambient temperature.
Constant immigration and resupply missions will also be incredibly challenging. 9 months in radiation-rich deep space in cramped, near solitary confinement is not something that is necessarily possible to endure for many humans. Every simulated Mars mission has ended with the participants at each others throats before arrival to the planet. Astronauts on the ISS, who receive relatively small doses of radiation compared to deep space, experience cancers at much higher rates, and probably damage their reproductive genetics significantly.
Contrast this to the colonization of the Americas. The initial colonists of both Massachusetts and Virginia were terribly unprepared for what was, at least compared to space, a relatively benign ecological context. There was clean air, water, shielding from radiation, and relatively plentiful food. Yet these colonies nearly died out in their first winter because of poor planning, and were only saved by the help of Native Americans. There are not Native Americans on Mars, no deer or wild berries to hunt in the woods if farming fails, or a supply ship is missed. Mars colonists won't be rugged frontiersmen, but extremely fragile dependents of techno-industrial society.
I'm not saying it's impossible to overcome these challenges, but it does seem irresponsible to waste trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on something we are pretty sure won't work.
2. Motivation
The primary initial motivation for New World colonization was $$$. The voyages of discovery were looking for trade routes to India to undercut the Muslim stranglehold on the spice trade. Initial Spanish colonization was focused on exploiting the mineral wealth of Mexico and Peru, French colonization on the fur trade, and English colonization on cash crops like tobacco.
In space, there is almost 0 monetary incentive for colonization. Satellites and telecommunications operate fine without any human astronauts, and even asteroid mining, which is a dubious economic proposition in the first place, doesn't really benefit from humans being in space. Everything kind of resource extraction that we might want to do in space is just better accomplished by robots for orders of magnitude less money.
What about Lebensraum? If that's really the issue, why don't we see the development of seasteds or self-sufficient cities in otherwise inhospitable regions of earth (the top of Everest for example).
3. Cost
Keeping an astronaut on the ISS costs about $1M/astronaut per day. And this is a space station that is relatively close to earth. Of course low earth orbit (LEO) where the ISS is, is halfway to most places in the inner solar system in terms of Delta V, so we're probably not talking about more than $10M/day per person for a Mars mission. For a colony on Mars with 100 people, that's close to a billion dollars a day. There is no national government, or corporation on earth that could support that.
Even if technology development by industry leaders such as SpaceX lowers launch costs by 1,000x, which I find to be an absurd proposition, that's still $1 million/day with no return on investment.
Even though SpaceX has improved the economics of launching to LEO and other near Earth orbits, our space capabilities seem to be degrading in most other areas. The promised Artemis moon missions are continually delayed by frankly embarrassing engineering oversights, and companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup Grumman that were essential in the first space race can't seem to produce components without running over cost and under quality.
4. Narrative
This one is a little bit more speculative. The West, and much of the West of the world is entering a demographic spiral, with birth rates falling ever lower below replacement. This relieves a lot of the "population pressure" to colonize space, but also indicates a collapse in the narrative of progress that underpins the whole rationale that would lead us to even want to do such an absurd thing. If our leadership and population doesn't want to build the physical infrastructure and human capital necessary to embark on this kind of megaproject, doesn't this suggest that this dream is no longer appealing to the collective psyche? My read on the ground is that the general population is sick of the narrative of progress: we were promised flying cars and backyard nuclear power plants, but we instead got new financial instruments, addictive technology, and insurance.
China of course is held up as a positive example where the dream of the "engineering state" is kept alive, but I think this is misleading. China has potentially even worse of a demographic crisis than we do, and most of its smartest people (at least those I see in American academia) are desperate to leave.
Without a compelling narrative, the challenges facing potential space colonization become even more stark and difficult to overcome.
thejdizzler
7d ago
The only reason I would consider donating to charity is that I worry that unearned wealth is a bit of behavioral hazard for me. But like you said, it will make my life significantly better, and I have sufficient maturity to use it responsibly and not be a wastrel/spendthrift. A car and a house are solid investments that will make my life better.
To clarify my financial situation. I currently am a PhD student and earn ~$50k/year. I expect to graduate within 15 months and earn anywhere from 75-150k. An extra 10k a year right now would effectively double my savings rate, while maybe not being too impactful in a few years time.
thejdizzler
7d ago
I've seen this advice from multiple commenters, so will start looking into it as soon as I get back to Baltimore!
thejdizzler
7d ago
There's the famous statistic that at one point 17 women reproduced for every man. But if you trace down that claim, it's likely that such an event happened during our hunter gatherer past, not during civilization. I'm not sure that tournament dynamics are compatible with the maintenance of civilization: the polygamous Islamic dynasties were famously unstable, as characterized by Ibn Khaldun, and were repeatedly overthrown by more cohesive, more monogamous groups from the periphery. If you don't have buy-in from most men (and women), and family formation ceases, it's almost tautological that you can't maintain the structure of society. This is a key insight from J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture, and the strongest counter argument against extreme forms of feminism and sexual libertinism.
thejdizzler
7d ago
I can relate to this quite a bit, and I think the whole dating app experience has made me quite indifferent to most women in general. I'd rather have my independence than date or marry someone I don't like.
thejdizzler
8d ago
The problem is I am potentially moving away from Baltimore within 1 year and have signed a lease for the next year already. I will know by the fall if I'm going to stay, in which case I will be house hunting in earnest.
thejdizzler
8d ago
They said that this is what they should have been doing but didn't plan ahead.
Looks like federal capital gains are 15%, and state is 4.75% if I stay under 100k total income and 5% if I stay under 150k. The smartest plan seems to be for me to wait until I need the money but otherwise cash out less than $50k a year.
thejdizzler
8d ago
I'll look into it! Thanks!
thejdizzler
8d ago
Well it's more like a 1 year time horizon. I'm getting my PhD at the latest in May 2027. I will know better what my job plans are more firm in the fall, so planning on waiting until then, although a car would probably be huge.
Thank you!
thejdizzler
8d ago
They are structuring it appropriately I believe. I am going to have to pay capital gains tax, and they arguing to have to pay some kind of inheritance tax, but I don't claim to understand the details on their end.
thejdizzler
8d ago
I've maxed my roth from last year (lol slightly offended you think I don't know what that is), but I suppose I can max for this year too.
They're transferring me mutual funds, some of which I will sell to get away from the NVIDIA bias.
A car makes sense if I stay in the US. If I go to Europe (which is a real possibility after my PhD) I a). may not need one, and b). should probably buy one there.
thejdizzler
8d ago
My parents are giving me $250k because they gave an equivalent amount to my sister so she could buy an apartment in London. I don't really want the money and have tried to argue them out of giving it to me (would rather they enjoy their retirement) but they are insistent, especially since they gave it to my sister. Being able to pay in cash for a house in Baltimore (if I stay here) would be pretty huge, but I'm not sure where I will be in a few years time so a house doesn't seem like a great use of time or money right now. Should I just keep it in the market until then (transferring to my preferred stock/bond distributions where appropriate)? Are there any other big ticket items that I should consider purchasing? A car would probably be useful, both for my practical and romantic life, but if I move to Europe in the next two years (maybe 30% chance), it's a terrible investment. I could also donate most of the money to charity, but that feels both like slapping my parents in the face, and potentially making life much more difficult for myself. Even if the money were to just sit in money market, it would be an extra $10k of income a year, which is substantial.
thejdizzler
9d ago
The problem with index funds right now is that NVIDIA is ~10% of the S&P and the rest of the index is heavily invested in tech. I think the idea behind index funds is sound, but the current distribution of the market is heavily skewed towards a few companies, which I think is risky. I would seek out alternative index funds that don’t have this bias. I will give you better advice on this in a few weeks when I’ve made the transition. Right now I’m mainly invested in govt bonds and individual stocks, which maybe isn’t sound.
thejdizzler
11d ago
Yea it definitely could be this too. A better way to say what I wanted to say is that I think I'm done with dating apps, forever. I've had a single relationship from an app and it fell apart as soon as she realized who I actually was, rather than who she projected onto me. I'm open to connection in my real life (I'm not anti friend like @ToaKraka).
thejdizzler
11d ago
I have two times. Both relationships ended messily because the feelings weren't mutual.
thejdizzler
11d ago
I think it's that I haven't met the right person and deliberately dating is not going to be the way for me to the meet the right person. Rather I think I'll meet the person who I want to spend a lot of time with by being social and meeting new people doing things I enjoy.
It's from this article. He calculates it from the ISS budget, which is $3B a year for 7 astronauts. 3,000 million/ 7 /365 ~ 1 M. Of course the cost is probably a bit lower than that given what you said about on the ground costs, but it's still higher than $35k because of launch costs.
Didn't know about the mouse thing, that's pretty cool. I assume the litters were not born in space though?
More options
Context Copy link