From: den Otter (neosapient@geocities.com)
Date: Wed Mar 31 1999 - 05:29:56 MST
----------
> From: Billy Brown <bbrown@conemsco.com>
> den Otter wrote:
> > > From: Billy Brown <bbrown@conemsco.com>
> > > What good would that do?
> >
> > Um, how about survival?
>
> As I understand it, you want a Mars colony as insurance against the
> destruction of the human race via gray goo or other 'dumb' ultratech
> disasters (as opposed to a smart disaster, which would build its own
> spacecraft and come looking for you).
Correctemundo...
> That would be a really good idea, except that we can't possibly set up a
> colony that could actually survive.
That's a pretty sweeping statement.
The best we can manage is to set up a
> base that would be completely dependant on regular resupply from Earth, and
> would die off within a few years of the disaster.
>
> Here is my reasoning:
>
> 1) Simply surviving on any other body in the solar system will require an
> elaborate technological infrastructure.
Actually, it [surviving on Mars] would be easier than surviving in
a space station such as MIR, or later the international version;
there's natural gravity, a solid base to build your structures in/
on (bunkers-esque structures would be a good idea for various
reasons), there's less trouble with radiation and there are plenty
of raw materials. Not to mention the positive psychological effect
of being able to go outside and take a relatively safe walk in an
earth-like environment.
> Any colony that cannot maintain its
> own infrastructure will die off very quickly.
Yes, but I don't see why maintaining the minimal infrastructure
for life support would be such a big deal. If you can do it in a
much smaller and generally more limited space station, then
why not on a planet which even has the components to
make water and oxygen readily available. Farming can be
done using relatively simple greenhouses, the produce of
which can be used in combination with imported "astronaut"
foods. With a bit of work, one could farm a broad variety
of fruits, vegetables, algae and perhaps even produce some
"meat" (certain insects are easy to keep and quite nutricious,
for example).
As MIR has shown, improvising can get you a long way when
parts break down, and one can imagine that several hundred
people, many of whom with technical backgrounds, could come
up with solutions to just about any problem if their life depended
on it. As in any pioneering situation, everyone's inventiveness and
flexibility is pushed to the limit, often with remarkable results.
Apart from that, advance (unmanned) missions would drop
of as many spare parts etc. as would be financially possible.
For this purpose, some kind of electromagnetic launcher
could be constructed in space (optional). All of this excludes
practical nanotech, which would make the colonization
easier still.
> 2) We want the base to be able to produce its own singularity if Earth is
> depopulated. Unless you believe in a magical,
> one-invention-that-solves-all-problems genie machine, that means you need a
> group of researchers big enough to perpetuate a large majority of our
> current scientific knowledge. An individual can introduce one innovation,
> but there are so many different things to be done that you still need a
> large group of people to make progress possible.
I don't believe in genie machines (for now), but I do belief that if
technology has advanced far enough to give the earth a goo problem
(one of the prime scenarios for an exodus to Mars), the Singularity isn't
very far off and can be reached by a relative handful of people with
the latest tech, which would in this scenario include fairly advanced
nanotech and extremely powerful (though not yet "real" AI)
computers with no doubt greatly improved interfaces, among other
things.
> That means we need tens of
> thousands of the best minds on Earth, or (more likely) a few hundred
> thousand researchers with a more normal distribution of ability.
Preparations for the colony could begin well in advance,
so that over a period of 10-15 years an infrastructure could be
built to support a community of perhaps a couple of hundred
people for several decades. More importantly, as [a threat related
to] nanotech would be the most likely reason for the actual
exodus, this would *automatically* mean that the technology
has matured enough to become practical. So the question
is: would a team of top scientists (a couple of hundred) with
several tons of specialized equipment, detailed knowledge
of existing nanotech, nanotech samples, powerful "mildly
intelligent" computers and life support for at least several
decades be able to:
a) create a more sturdy vessel for the human mind (no
intelligence amplification necessary, the extra speed alone
buys you subjective decades, centuries or more).
and/or
b) use the nanotech to create sustainable ("indefinite") life
support, possibly in combination with
c) vastly extended biological lifespan (otherwise you must freeze
the dead and produce offspring, either in vitro of the old-fashioned
way).
and/or
d) try to amplify human intelligence (no nanotech needed, but
welcome).
e) if, and only if, the above turn out to be too difficult (unlikely),
try to create a seed AI and hope for the best.
f) if even this fails, the last people left could load their frozen
collegues into the main spaceship and set it on a self-correcting
course towards an area of space most likely to contain intelligent
life, while onboard computers continue to find ways to
upload or otherwise "save" the frozen, until all systems fail.
However, it's IMO very unlikely that it would have to come to
this. I find it extremely hard to believe that several hundred
specialists with functioning nanotech and plenty of lab space
couldn't somehow find a way to keep the colony alive almost
indefinitely.
> 3) We need a functioning economy that can support the researchers and make
> use of their results.
More precisely: you need "fresh" air, potable water, wholesome
food, some entertainment and power, all of which can be
provided by (even) current technologies. Also you'd need some
way to replace broken parts/build new machines which, given the
impressive engineering feats of astronauts and other people in
cramped, tech-filled, high-risk places, shouldn't be a terminal
problem even now, let alone some 20-30 yrs down the road.
> Right now you would need several hundred thousand
> people just to achieve a minimal level viability, and there would still be
> many different kinds of things that could not be manufactured locally.
But many of those things wouldn't be necessary. All you want are
the tools for bare survival, not for an interesting, blooming civilization.
Remember, though a Mars outpost would be useful and interesting
no matter what happens, the actual migration would only happen
if earth would [threaten to] become completely unfit for intelligent life.
The choice would be between certain death and a (perhaps) small
but real chance on Mars. That choice is easy, IMO.
> To
> get true versatility you probably need millions of top-flight people, or
> tens of millions of average citizens.
Only under inefficient circumstances like we have on earth
*today*. In a cutting-edge, dedicated environment (lab space),
with death peeping in trough the windows, so to speak, everyone
would be pushed to his/her limit and "do the work of millions".
Also, a "big" civilization would create problems which a relatively
small research compound simply wouldn't have. You need millions
to support millions, but you don't need millions to support a couple
of hundred/thousand.
> The only way around this requirement is to make such strong
> assumptions about AI that the whole exercise is pointless - if
> human-equivalent AI is cheap and easy, SI will be a problem before gray goo
> is even possible.
True, this is an (almost) worst-case and unfortunately fairly likely
scenario. However, that's no excuse for just giving up.
> 4) Right now, a massive worldwide effort might be able to set up a few
> hundred people on Mars, with minimal equipment and no long-term survival
> prospects.
A massive, world-wide effort could do a *lot* better than that (certainly
with me in charge ;-) Could you perhaps explain what exactly the
problem would be with creating sustainable life support? Anyway,
I think it's fairly safe to assume 2-3 decades down the road a still
big but feasible (multi-lateral) private effort could achieve a lot more
at a fraction of the current cost. If the Singularity comes tomorrow
we're all screwed, but the longer it takes the better our chances become.
> If launch costs come down dramatically in the next 20 years we
> might increase the mass we can afford to move by two orders of magnitude,
> which would give us a few thousand people with the ability to handle some
> basic necessities (i.e. local production of air, water and food). This is
> still far short of even the most minimal requirement (by a factor of at
> least 10^2 in people, and 10^4 or worse in mass).
Could you specify this somewhat?
> Now, as an aside, I do think it is a good use for the early products of
> nanotech research. If we get big improvements in industrial automation and
> some moderately advanced nanotech, but sentient AI turns out to be a very
> hard problem, then interplanetary colonies would become feasible.
> Unfortunately, that means we have to solve the gray goo problem first.
A matter of timing (planning ahead, actually -- if you only start to
think about Mars colonization when the first "goo level" nanites
are ready, you're likely to late. Better have as much as possible
already in place, and simply get the nanotech on board, maybe
use it to improve your vessel somewhat, and go).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:26 MST