|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 01/22/2009 : 11:56:24
|
I was attracted to this article by the title, but it turns out the article isn't about evolution other than a quote by the interviewee who suggested humans 'want to evolve.'
The article is in fact about how humanity ought to go about becoming a multi-world space-faring species. IMHO, not only is the guy wrong about humanity 'wanting' to evolve, but also about how we should leave our world. Here's the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090122/sc_space/humanspaceflightshoulddriveevolution
Regarding the actual title, assuming we don't develop extremely cheap and easy means to travel between worlds, then IMHO as soon as humanity establishes a self-sustaining colony on another world, separate evolutionary paths will be established. I say this because whatever the new world is, there will be a radically different environment and the transplanted population will be, for practical purposes, reproductively isolated.
Regarding the next steps into space, its about the money. The cost vs. the benefits. So a space industry needs an economic goal, like orbital power, orbital manufacturing, or orbital mining (towing an asteroid into orbit and mininig it...). That gets us large scale infrastructure for getting into and around in space.
But a colony on Mars is hard to justify economically - how can you make money by setting up a colony on Mars with realistic technology? Money doesn't work as the carrot, so you have to be motivated by something like species preservation or science. Moon? There's mining potential, I guess. Certainly scientific potential. I doubt it'd work as another basket for our eggs though - the moon's never going to be self-sustaining based on current knowledge.
The best bet is making money in space. Once we've got a space industry going, the other stuff won't be so costly to do. If you're in orbit for other reasons already, going down to the moon for whatever reason isn't so daunting. And if you're plucking asteroids out of the belt for mining, dropping people off on Mars isn't such a big deal, nor is visiting the Jovian moons, etc...
Of course, IMHO, putting a permanent colony on Mars and elsewhere is a worthy goal by itself. Since we have yet to find evidence that life is common in the universe, I think we ought to spread it as far and wide as possible. And since mass extinctions are a staple of life on Earth, it's only a matter of time before our turn comes. Best to spread humanity around sooner rather than later and help ensure some level of intelligence survives past the next big die off. But, of course, such thinking, for a variety of reasons, isn't going to get the tens to hundreds of billions a self-sustaining colony would likely cost.
Comments, thoughts, arguments welcome...
|
-Chaloobi
|
Edited by - chaloobi on 01/22/2009 11:58:12
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2009 : 14:52:55 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, I agree that the "evolution" part of that article is pretty much BS, much as though Columbus had used that as his reason for wanting to explore westward. Dr. Kai Multhaup may indeed have some reasons that he sees things this way, but they're not explained in the article.
My own opinion is in agreement with Dr. Multhaup that human exploration of the solar system is essential. I'm concerned that the Bush moon mission is just another one-time shot that will, like Apollo, again be swallowed by history. I want to see a systematic, long-range attempt to create an infrastructure for the exploration of the solar system that is as self-sustaining as possible.
My approach would be to first build a robust service base in earth obit.
The base would be primarily tasked to assemble and maintain a fleet of manned, general-purpose deep space ships, possibly propelled by ion engines, each capable of carrying a wide variety of landers and other equipment to the moon, Mars, the asteroids, and to the outer planets.
A mission to the moon would involve using one of these deep space ships to haul a lander vehicle to lunar orbit. The lander would primarily assess, and hopefully exploit for further exloration use, any water ice that might be found at the moon's south polar area.
Likewise, in a Mars mission, the deep space ships would haul landers and habitats to Mars, and the initial human Martian surveys would concentrate on finding resources for maintaining a Martian scientific base. If those resources do not suffice, we would simply have to defer having a Mars base.
An asteroids mission should first and foremost look for materials for constructing space craft and habitats.
The overall mission of the service base and its manned deep space ships would be to develop a progressive and flexible approach to growing humanity's presence in the solar system, finding local resources which would allow us to increasingly get around the "earth-to-orbit" bottleneck. Science could be done from any of these deep space ships, but their primary initial mission would be to find resources and develop the engineering capacity to keep humans in space.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/22/2009 14:54:19 |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2009 : 19:42:03 [Permalink]
|
| I agree with your strategy as outlined but I don't see any government or any private enterprise funding it. People have to think they have something to gain beyond simple knowledge or they won't care enough to pay the tax dollars to fund it. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2009 : 20:37:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
I agree with your strategy as outlined but I don't see any government or any private enterprise funding it. People have to think they have something to gain beyond simple knowledge or they won't care enough to pay the tax dollars to fund it.
|
Of course, you're right about funding. But if longterm manned exploration and colonization of the solar system is to ever be done, it must take a long-term approach something like that.
I'm sick of half-measures that make no progress toward building space infrastructure. After Apollo, the moon was simply abandoned, with no base there. The ISS provides good science, but not a logistics base for further manned exploration.
My guess is that the key is finding something of great economic value in space, such as ores from asteroids. After that, expansion might fund itself. But just getting to that point is likely to be so expensive that it may take many, many decades. Maybe robotic exploration of the asteroids is a cheap way to build an interest in their exploitation.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/22/2009 20:38:48 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2009 : 22:02:27 [Permalink]
|
| The Asteriod Belt is a costly mining place. There are good prospects in the asteroids in Close Earth Orbit. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 05:58:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by chaloobi
I agree with your strategy as outlined but I don't see any government or any private enterprise funding it. People have to think they have something to gain beyond simple knowledge or they won't care enough to pay the tax dollars to fund it.
|
Of course, you're right about funding. But if longterm manned exploration and colonization of the solar system is to ever be done, it must take a long-term approach something like that.
I'm sick of half-measures that make no progress toward building space infrastructure. After Apollo, the moon was simply abandoned, with no base there. The ISS provides good science, but not a logistics base for further manned exploration.
My guess is that the key is finding something of great economic value in space, such as ores from asteroids. After that, expansion might fund itself. But just getting to that point is likely to be so expensive that it may take many, many decades. Maybe robotic exploration of the asteroids is a cheap way to build an interest in their exploitation.
|
What we all misunderstood about Apollo at the time was that it wasn't a space program, it was a missle program. And when it's goals were reached, there was no real followup for a space industry. Just missles.
I've read analyses that suggest a single modest metalic asteroid would yeild more of all the basic and precious metals than have been mined from the earth's crust in all of human history. The value of such a thing would vastly repay the investment, assuming some kind of robotic mission that goes out and tows it into Earth or Lunar orbit where it can be conveniently mined and ore returned to Earth. But the upfront cost is gigantic, even for a NEO like the Doctor suggested. And it would be dangerous - if a mistake were made and the rock hits the Earth....
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 07:52:20 [Permalink]
|
How about tourism? That's already being developed by private interests for short flights. There are (probably) enough extremely wealthy people who'd pay tens of millions to stay in a space hotel for a week.
The trick is getting started. Once you do you've got infrastructure in place you can build from there.
I'd be very nervous about a space-based mosque, though.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
| Edited by - Hittman on 01/23/2009 09:58:42 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 08:44:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
How about tourism? That's already being developed by private interests for short flights. There are (probably) enough extremely wealthy people who'd pay tens of millions to stay in a space hotel for a week.
The trick is getting started. Once you do you've got infrastructure in place you can build from.
I'd be very nervous about a space-based mosque, though.
|
I agree. We'll see lots of low orbit tourism fairly soon. I think anything further out, though, would be cost prohibitive to set up for its own sake.
Regarding the mosque, don't the prayers require facing the East? Which way is East at any given time in orbit? I don't think they can do it. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 09:39:41 [Permalink]
|
But it's all so costly. I have trouble imagining the space industry developing past sending earth servicing satellites without the installation of a space elevator.
As for human evolution. As Darwin himself perceived, mankind has mostly freed itself from natural selection which was the driving force behind evolution. Sure, mutation happens all the time, but without an active natural selection, the new alleles just stay at a basal level in the population...
There is little reason why space colonization would change any of that except in one scenario where human are send to space with insufficient technology. People which are better at warding off the nocious effects of radiations for example or of a lower gravity just survive longer and are less affected with sterility which drives evolution.
Of course, this lovely scenario means that the NASA is sending people knowing that a lot of them will suffer from health trouble, sterility, cancer and else. I just don't see NASA being so flippant about the people they send, and I just don't see the public letting them be.
Another scenario would be NASA anticipating the problem and bio-engineering suitable individuals. It is not technically impossible, especially working with eggs rather than full grown astronauts... And the ethical problems behind it are more subjective too.
Right now, I don't see NASA taking such controversial steps but maybe, one day... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 10:34:38 [Permalink]
|
You're ignoring genetic drift, Simon.
Anyway, we need to get off this rock, 'cause it's going to get really hot here in about five billion years. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 10:53:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
But it's all so costly. I have trouble imagining the space industry developing past sending earth servicing satellites without the installation of a space elevator. |
The space elevator itself would be cost prohibitive. Nobody's going to build something like that without a space industry demanding it. Chicken, meet egg.
| As for human evolution. As Darwin himself perceived, mankind has mostly freed itself from natural selection which was the driving force behind evolution. Sure, mutation happens all the time, but without an active natural selection, the new alleles just stay at a basal level in the population... |
For now everyone gets to breed as much as they want. You could argue that those who want to breed more are now being selected for. Interestingly, this tends to be the less educated, less affluent, more religous people of the world.... Not sure if there's a genetic component in any of those populations that might become more prevalent in the genome.... I wouldn't be surprised to see some pretty ugly natural selection take place in my life time, though, mostly owing to the ever rising population and the coming climate change.
There is little reason why space colonization would change any of that except in one scenario where human are send to space with insufficient technology. People which are better at warding off the nocious effects of radiations for example or of a lower gravity just survive longer and are less affected with sterility which drives evolution. |
If colonies were established on the variety of worlds in the solar system (or beyond) and even in 0g environments, and our ability to travel between these places doesn't get much more sophisticated, then you'd probably see major changes over long time spans (thousands of years+). Maintaining a colony's going to be tough no matter what technology you bring - there's going to be selection. And because so many of these environemnts are so different, I'd not be at all surprised to see people engineering themselves to fit their environments better. It's not natural selection, per se, but it is evolution.
| Of course, this lovely scenario means that the NASA is sending people knowing that a lot of them will suffer from health trouble, sterility, cancer and else. I just don't see NASA being so flippant about the people they send, and I just don't see the public letting them be. |
It never occurred to me that NASA would be setting up space colonies anyway. It's going to be a private enterprise thing and I wouldn't be surprised at all if people ended up in bad situations far from help, even abandoned to survive on their own if disaster strikes at home and some operation becomes too difficult to support.
If we make colonies on other worlds, around other stars especially, and we never develop some kind of faster than light travel, in a few millenia there'll be all sorts of different kinds of humans. (And then they'll fight.  ) |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 01/23/2009 10:55:36 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 11:13:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're ignoring genetic drift, Simon.
Anyway, we need to get off this rock, 'cause it's going to get really hot here in about five billion years.
|
Not really.
Genetic drift produces the new alleles. But without natural selection and considering the enormous pool of quickly mixing genes humanity represents, genetic drift will be too slow to produce any significant changes in the population.
It can be significant for small isolated populations but humanity right now is neither.
Maybe, indeed, when humanity will have nuclearized itself between several planets but who is to say when that will happen and how (the various planets may well keep in contact with each other with regular population movements between them...) |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 20:02:50 [Permalink]
|
I really doubt that natural selection has ended for our species. Why would it suddenly stop? Just because we are aware of it and have the potential of doing our own selecting?
In fairly recent times, whole populations have developed an ability to digest lactose in adulthood. Some populations seem to be more resistant to alcoholism than others. Skin tones have changed according to environment. I would imagine that resistance to smoking cigarettes is presently being "naturally" selected for.
I do imagine that in the future, humans will control their genome to a much greater degree, but that hasn't happened much yet.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/23/2009 20:05:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 22:06:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Not really.
Genetic drift produces the new alleles. But without natural selection and considering the enormous pool of quickly mixing genes humanity represents, genetic drift will be too slow to produce any significant changes in the population. |
Nah, mutations are what produce new alleles. Genetic drift can spread them throughout the population, without selective pressures. "Significant changes" may not be seen until the environment changes, or another mutation comes along which works with the first. That is, after all, exactly what happened with Dr. Lenski's bacteria.| It can be significant for small isolated populations but humanity right now is neither. |
Now you're talking about the Founder Effect. I'm not.| Maybe, indeed, when humanity will have nuclearized itself between several planets but who is to say when that will happen and how (the various planets may well keep in contact with each other with regular population movements between them...) |
We were speculating on how humans can evolve, but now you're not doing much more than saying that speculation is invalid.
There are completely plausible evolutionary mechanisms which can lead to "significant" change within even just this one planet's population. The population isn't of a single homogenous genome. After all, we aren't all a uniform beige color quite yet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 22:13:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I really doubt that natural selection has ended for our species. Why would it suddenly stop? |
It won't. Even if we have complete control over the genome, leaving it "fixed" while the environment changes (as it will) is genomic suicide. If we purposefully mutate our genome in response to natural environmental changes (climate change, ozone depletion, etc.), it would still be changing in response to those natural selectors.
In other words, I would consider "artificial selection" to be "humans want pigs colored pink," while natural selection is "pink pigs die from skin cancer under these solar conditions, so we'd better make the pigs some other color." Or maybe we will create another category, "artificial natural selection?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Human Space Flight Should Drive Evolution
