> Eric Watt Forste <arkuat@idiom.com> wrote:
> Again, if it's going to be functioning in space, with a closed
> boundary, with living organisms in it, then it *is* a complete
> ecosystem. The question is not whether or not you need a
> complete ecosystem, the question is whether the ecosystem you
> construct will flourish or die.
I would argue that you would want to get rid of all the organisms but one, man. We have starting examples of this in the barrier facilities in which many rodents are maintained. We can readily synthesize the vitamins provided by our current bacteria, so why not eliminate the parasites entirely? It certainly would lower our energy requirements.
> The system you describe, a closed system with just a few
> species, has actually been attempted in early closure
> experiments. It proved, empirically, unstable. So I don't know
> why you feel that we already know how to do this when past
> attempts to do so have failed.
You have to deal with time scale differences. Over the long term our existing ecosphere is probably unstable. What we now see is due to long term downstream effects of earlier biosphere changes. Those changes continue even today, just slowly enough that we don't realize many of them.
I doubt *any* complex system can be constructed that is not unstable or very chaotic. Only if you have relatively simple systems can you have some hope of predicting and following all of the interactions.
> Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the history of the
> research. The early closures all *failed* at some point and had
> to be opened. The current complex approach which you dismiss
> developed in response to an exploration of those failures and
> successful attempts to remedy them.
If you are trying to recreate a biosphere with pre-existing tools (microorganisms and higher plants & animals), then you probably have to go for complexity (because nature has evolved to be that way). If you are willing to apply energy & chemical fixes and you aren't losing any "mass", then the system is by definition self contanined and you can drive the imbalances in any direction you want.
> You are welcome to go into space with just a few species and die
> after six months or so, but I have other plans.
I'd go with no species, a database of the existing biochemical pathways and DNA sequences for the enzymes involved in them and a chemi-synthetic system that let me synthesize any of those enzymes.
With that and some electro-chemical/nanotech patches e.g. 2Fe2O3 <=> 4Fe + 3O2, 2H2O <=> 2H2 + O2, CO2 <=> C + O2) I have no problem with long term survivability.
We need to worry about real problems like radiation damage.
Regarding the nanotech development for Space development:
> Yes, but if you work away from the "light of day" you slow down
> the process of diffusion of innovation. Many labs will be
> reinventing wheels unnecessarily.
> I don't know why you want to slow down the process with secrecy.
> There is a *reason* why publication is recognized as a fundamental
> part of the process of scientific research.
Publication works in *scientific research* because you want verification
that the conclusions are correct. There is a *big* difference between
engineering (which is most of what Greg wanted) and scientific research
(I've personally learned this the hard way). In engineering all you
need to know is whether or not it works. Reality provides a much
better review than any collection of your "peers" (rockets that don't
work blow up). The only point on which we may disagree is the amount
of "engineering" vs. "research" that might be required to fullfill
the goals of getting a sustainable enclave into space.
>
> If you slow research down, people will die unnecessarily as a
> result. I can't countenance that, myself.
>
Well, then, I suspect you are up in arms about the drug industry
and the FDA, since their current approaches do kill many (due to
the unavailability of drugs that could work for a subset of the
population) in the name of protecting a few (for whom those drugs
may be dangerous).
> Botulin toxin can be produced easily by biotech, dissolved into a
> DMSO vapor, and dispersed by a variety of means. Etc, etc, etc.
> Rather than to Gray Goo, I might refer to Nick Szabo's essay on
> Green Goo.
If you have a pointer for the Green Goo essay I'd like to review it.
>
> I do not see any mention by you of means by which you will
> prevent the emergence of the two situations that you admit would
> give us cause for concern. Amoral intelligences already exist
> in plenty, and will start enhancing themselves in short order if
> they have not already.
> And there are people whose posthumanism
> extends as far as antihumanism... such people may already be
> engaged in fast self-evolution research.
> I wrote:
> > With regard to the stale atmosphere issues, these are taken care of by
> > molecular sorting. With regard to food production, people seem to be
> > still thinking ancient-tech. A full complement of nutritious & tasty
> > gruels with all the necessary vitamins, proteins, fats & carbohydates
> > will be able to be produced in bacteria/yeast, directly from sunlight
> > or electricity, using biotech, long before we have hard nanotech
> > available.
>
> I see zero economic pressure for the development of such technology.
> Who will fund the research and why would they bother to fund it?
>
> I'm still not convinced that effective in silico simulations of
> ontogenesis can be done without atomic-level detail, and that is
> a pretty tall order.
Agreed, you gotta get into space and build one darn big supercomputer.
> Handling dead babies on a regular basis is just plain bad for human
> beings psychologically, so I don't plan to do any of that.
Why? So we are hard-wired to think dead babies are bad. If your life (or the survival of the species) depended on a rapid turnover of dead babies to develop workable neo-genomes, then I suspect you would be willing to adapt.
[Please note when the news reporters or others read this note in the Extropian archives -- I am *not* suggesting this is a reasonable strategy in any situation other than the "last resort" scenario.]
Robert