Setting aside if one can, just for the moment, all of the above considerations, is it really a good [i.e., sensible, constructive] idea to spread the genes of our confused and morally corrupt species to other locations in the universe? In my opinion, we'd do better to quarantine ourselves until we are first capable of establishing a sane, rational, and just human society on this planet.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
The Cost of Landing on a Comet
- Thread starter SiGiL
- Start date
Free episodes:
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
Well, one may need to come before the other. Perhaps mobile self-sufficient societies may be just what humanity needs to grow up. No resource wars would be necessary. You may need to treat my ideas as suspect, because I am biased and an idealist. To me, living off world would have such a major psychological impact, even for those born there, that wars and other wastes of resources may become an alien idea.(No pun intended).
I can only hope that your hopes and expectations prove true if and when we begin to colonize other planets, exo_doc. I don't expect that being 'off-world' would radically change human beings. For one thing, by that point the idea of being off-world would already have been naturalized, made 'normal' and fitting. In fact, I think it already has been through space science and Hollywood films. But we are still the same species that has colonized other people's lands, stolen their resources, and used and abused the colonized themselves as resources throughout our recorded history. Not much hope for change at this point, one of the most degraded in our species history.
Ive long held the same view
That human society will with the establishment of orbital habitats split into two very different mindsets.
For those living on these platforms maintaining the local environment will be paramount, a matter of survival, the ground grubbers below will be seen as dirty, primitive. Dangerous.
Elysium played with this idea to good effect imo.
An artificial biosphere cant be taken for granted the way we do our native one. Its inhabitants will need as a matter of absolute necessity, to be more mature about its managment.
That human society will with the establishment of orbital habitats split into two very different mindsets.
For those living on these platforms maintaining the local environment will be paramount, a matter of survival, the ground grubbers below will be seen as dirty, primitive. Dangerous.
Elysium played with this idea to good effect imo.
An artificial biosphere cant be taken for granted the way we do our native one. Its inhabitants will need as a matter of absolute necessity, to be more mature about its managment.
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
Excellent post Mike. You and Constance both have good ideas.
Good points, i guess it depends on the scenario. If we just jump from one planetary habitat to another, we may well take all our bad habits with us.
But if we have a transitional period using artificial habitats, then the necessity of managing those habitats carefully may make us wise up.
But if we have a transitional period using artificial habitats, then the necessity of managing those habitats carefully may make us wise up.
S
smcder
Guest
Two people are trapped in a cave with fifteen minutes of air - the ultimate case of limited resources. One person kills the other - maybe he needs time to finish his prayers or maybe he wants to think about his family a little longer or maybe he can scream louder and longer with more air.
The overall mindset of the group is irrelevant. Put me, a psychopath, on a space station with a bunch of you idealists and optimists and (shudder) altruists and I will use the fact that we are all on very limited resources to take over ... if I don't have the technical know how, I'll do it by forging alliances by appealing to the greed and animosity in others. How do you think I got picked for the mission in the first place? It won't be hard. In fact, I'm looking forward to it ... when do we leave? ;-)
(In a group of a hundred people, there will be a psychopath or a sociopath and if not, there will be one within a few months ... psychological testing? ... uh-huh yeah ...
If I pull the plug on the artificial atmosphere, I'll die too? No, because I sabotaged all the suits except two. (It takes two to populate a new planet.) Besides, who can play chicken better than a psychopath? I don't have a fear response and threats of punishment don't deter me.
You think you would just kill me? Well, what would that make you? Who would do the killing? Don't I get a fair trial? And being one of a small crew, I'd have a pretty essential function, wouldn't I? Being a psychopath I'd make sure I did ... I might be a doctor for example. I'm also very, very good at convincing people I'm sorry.
I have a special appeal to women - not only because of high testosterone (look it up) but also pure glibness (because I don't care about the truth and have no guilt, I don't give my self away with body language) - and a lifetime of manipulation. I also tend to be alpha. So, very likely my genes will make a up a considerable portion of the very small population over time ...
At any rate, if you eliminated violence in one generation - it doesn't mean you'll be able to teach it to the next (inevitably rebellious) generation born in space ... it would immediately be seen as an advantage.
S
smcder
Guest
I think rather than depending on space to change us ... we'd be wise to try and change before we go into space in small groups in tiny quarters. Historically, a lot of bad things have happened in such situations.
My other point is that we would have to radically change as a species, not just a simple tweak here and there and not only that ... we'd ALL have to change. One bad apple will raise a lot of Cain if he's able.
The fact that we have a steady rate of psychopathy in the population (cross culturally - sociopaths are different - psychopathy seems to have a biological basis) - is a strong argument that even if we eliminated this trait somehow, it could re-evolve.
My other point is that we would have to radically change as a species, not just a simple tweak here and there and not only that ... we'd ALL have to change. One bad apple will raise a lot of Cain if he's able.
The fact that we have a steady rate of psychopathy in the population (cross culturally - sociopaths are different - psychopathy seems to have a biological basis) - is a strong argument that even if we eliminated this trait somehow, it could re-evolve.
Last edited by a moderator:
You need more than 2 or you get whats called genetic bottleneck
Reduced genetic variation means that the population may not be able to adapt to new selection pressures, such as climatic change or a shift in available resources, because the genetic variation that selection would act on may have already drifted out of the population
Founder effects
A founder effect occurs when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population. This small population size means that the colony may have:
- reduced genetic variation from the original population.
- a non-random sample of the genes in the original population.
Minimum viable population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anthropologist John Moore of the University of Florida has studied
this issue extensively
?Researchers are trying to figure out the ideal number of people
needed to create a viable population for multi- generational space
travel. They?ve decided it needs to be 160 people. But with some
social engineering it might even be possible to reduce this to 80.?
?Moore has previously studied small migrating populations of early
humans and has developed simulation software called Ethnopop that
analyzes the reproductive viability of small groups. A space trip of
200 years would perhaps take eight to 10 generations, and for this,
his calculations suggest a minimum number of 160 people are needed to
maintain a stable population
Researchers in conservation biology have tended to adopt the "50/500" rule of thumb initially advanced by Franklin and Soule. This rule says a short-term effective population size (Ne) of 50 is needed to prevent an unacceptable rate of inbreeding, whereas a long‐term Ne of 500 is required to maintain overall genetic variability. The Ne = 50 prescription corresponds to an inbreeding rate of 1% per generation, approximately half the maximum rate tolerated by domestic animal breeders. The Ne = 500 value attempts to balance the rate of gain in genetic variation due to mutation with the rate of loss due to genetic drift.
Space colonization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
S
smcder
Guest
See ... it's working already, that tendency to show what you know and to be helpful! Thank you!
S
smcder
Guest
So a couple of possibilities - our expedition we'll have that minimum number of population or we'll carry the biological means to establish diversity in cold storage, right?
Yes thats another posibility
A much smaller initial population of as little as two women should be viable as long as human embryos are available from Earth. Use of a sperm bank from Earth also allows a smaller starting base with negligible inbreeding.
But without such technology, MVP becomes a serious issue
A Magic Number? » American Scientist
Imagine how useful it would be if someone calculated the minimum population needed to preserve each threatened organism on Earth, especially in this age of accelerated extinctions.
A group of Australian researchers say they have nailed the best figure achievable with the available data: 5,000 adults. That’s right, that many, for mammals, amphibians, insects, plants and the rest.
Their goal wasn’t a target for temporary survival. Instead they set the bar much higher, aiming for a census that would allow a species to pursue a standard evolutionary lifespan, which can vary from one to 10 million years.
That sort of longevity requires abundance sufficient for a species to thrive despite significant obstacles, including random variation in sex ratios or birth and death rates, natural catastrophes and habitat decline. It also requires enough genetic variation to allow adequate amounts of beneficial mutations to emerge and spread within a populace.
S
smcder
Guest
That's two women and one man ... right? All alone? Man, I may be a psychopath, but I ain't crazy! lol
ASIDE
I'm thinking more and more of that scene in Dr Strangelove:
Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Russian Ambassador: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
------
But I think that would all get a little boring - no one to tell what to do ... I guess once we got the family going I could build my own little empire - and with starting them all off from the get go, I shouldn't get much guff ... once I see one that looks like me, smells like me - I'd either off him or if I'm getting past it, I'd groom him for my position.
I have all this good historical literature too that would tell me how to do it, right? Who do you think's been founding empires from day one?So, our whole history could lead us to shooting off my genes into deep space and starting the whole thing over ... now, to me, that's funny.
S
smcder
Guest
That puts animal populations in perspective:
Mountain Gorillas: 700
Cross River Gorillas <300
There are more of some species than I thought, though.
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)
Population: 10,000 to 25,000. Status: Endangered Species.
Trends: Increasing. The whaling industry, which drove the largest animal earth has ever seen toward extinction, ceased to operate decades ago—but not before the blue whale’s population had fallen by more than 90 percent.
But that's not strictly true is it? Don't the Japanese and maybe Norway still hunt whale?
S
smcder
Guest
Power Moby-Dick, the Online Annotation — Chapter 105
This chapter compares the slaughter of buffalo to the whaling industry in Melville's time ... he is very optimistic.
This chapter compares the slaughter of buffalo to the whaling industry in Melville's time ... he is very optimistic.
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
Geez dude. I didn't say it would be a utopia. But it will more than likely solve some problems. Will others be created? Most assuredly. But I can't see humans not growing up a little bit. I mean, survival would mean cooperation more than we have now.
S
smcder
Guest
LOL - just a little bit of theater. But such people do exist.
I think we don't see the cooperation because we can afford to be selfish and short sighted. By afford, I mean literally, economically - we in the developed world that is. That we can't see past that bothers me. Media saturated consumer economies tend to breed self-indulgence.
I live in a very rural part of a poor state and cooperation is a kind of sub economy. The rate of giving, percentage wise is very high. People give and don't like being thanked. There is an understanding that you'll do the same. This kind of giving would kick in immediately if the larger economy failed. People here have livestock, burn wood for heat, raise their own gardens, etc. They are good with machines and firearms. This isn't survivalist country, it's a place only a generation removed from poverty in the better cases.
Humans alreadydo tend to cooperate in tough circumstances even if it means forging uneasy alliances and putting aside self interest. They can grow up fast and it happens automatically, under the right circumstances, people jump at the chance to be helpful even at some risk to themselves. Since most of our history in most of the world has been under tough circumstances, I believe we can rise to many occasions if we don't overdue it in the meantime. So, I'm basically optimistic too - if I weren't, I wouldn't have indulged in that little bit of role play. I'm not a psychopath myself, but they are surprisingly common in my family tree.
There's a funny story a researcher in psychopathy used to tell. He was trying to find out about psychopaths in other cultures. He suspected that psychopathy occurs at the same rate cross-culturally ... that it has biological roots. And in fact, recent research in brain scans do seem to support this.
For your daily dose of irony:
Frequently Asked Questions - The Parapsychological Association
Just look at that charming face ....
Now, he was among the Inuit peoples and asked if they recognized this type of person - he said someone who sleeps with their wives, steals from them and is a good liar. They said oh yes - a kunlangeta. "Well, what do you do about it?" he asked.
"We arrange a hunting party out on the ice and at an opportune moment, one of us pushes him into the water."
In reality, my worst case scenario is unlikely - we'll need a few kunlangeta to survive, to do what the rest of us can't or won't - but we'll have to push many more into the water or out into space.
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
Sending tax dollars to military corporations instead of medical researchers could cure cancer. Right.
This is the same bizzaro non-sense thinking as saying a failed space mission is a huge success. It's just sad.