Exactly.Originally Posted by Noclevername
Established Member
Exactly.
Order of Kilopi
And don't you think that if an even greater and more obvious danger arose, the majority of those nations (or their modern successors), who now have more educated people, more industry, and more advanced technology, wouldn't decide to do something about it? After all, a planet coming at you is pretty hard to ignore.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Established Member
Of course those same kinds of peoples will.
This brings us to other questions asked in this forum. "What would happen if Earth was in emminent danger of destruction, or if our planet became unliveable?" Who would try to do anything about it? Would there be an attempt to send some small faction of humanity off Earth to colonize space, trying to extend the lifespan of the human race?
Yes, I'm sure there would be, but it would be a very small portion of human kind attempting to make such a sacrifice.
If I say anymore, I'll get in trouble.
Order of Kilopi
Yeah, just Germany, Italy, and Japan, right? Just joking.
Seriously, though, the situation might be somewhat complex, but it seems to me that a significant number of the independent countries at that time did participate in the war effort, to various degrees. Actually, the US didn't enter into 1941, so I suppose we were one of those who left it a problem for others to deal with, at least at the beginning. And there were also a bunch of countries, like Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, etc., who were sort of cornered between the Nazis and the Soviets, and were trying to find a way to survive. The Soviets were allied with Western Europe, so it wasn't like those countries could simply join the Allies and expect to be able to remain independent.
As above, so below
Established Member
Yes those countries fought, for awhile, until they were over run. They had no choice. Take a look at the number of nations you listed, and compare that number to the numer of other nations in the world at that time. Many of those other nations were not exacty dirt poor. Many of them were relatively well off, and were in no real danger of invasion; even if they would have sided with the 'Allies'.
Order of Kilopi
Under the circumstances of the OP, the vast majority of humanity couldn't be saved anyway. Ideally, we'll try to save as many as possible, but as long as enough survive to provide genetic diversity, count it as, if not a "win", then as close to a win as is possible when you know billions are going to die. If we fail to do so, that's a hard "lose".
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
But in the OP scenario, every nation is equally in danger of extinction.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
But my list wasn't comprehensive. There were (I gather) 77 independent nations as of 1939. And the list of officially neutral nations was: Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. So not a big majority. Though I know the reality is a bit more complicated. Which countries were you thinking of in your list that left it up to others?
As above, so below
Established Member
Yes, I believe that is part of the OP's point. The other point, or points, are what would human kind do to save itself, and who would try to do something to save humanity?
My answer, in my opinion, very few of us would.
Order of Kilopi
It wouldn't take all of us, just enough of us. As long as those relative few have sufficient capability to get the job done, it'll work.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
But you're missing how hard it would be to build a starship. It would be hard enough to build space habitats, but there would be fewer unknowns, and potentially a large population could be saved rather than just perhaps hundreds. And it wouldn't mean they could never build starships. Actually, I'd expect that after they had a number of generations building space habitats, and with more time to look into better propulsion technology, they would have a much better shot at building a successful starship design.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
Despite my fairly negative response earlier, I should qualify it by saying that I'd definitely be willing to do something, but not dedicate myself totally to it. I would suspect that many people would be happy to see some funding go to such a project, even while they continued to live their lives.
As above, so below
Established Member
Absolutely, I'm sure you are a well educated person who has a great interest in the preservation of human intelligence. I'm sure you would not want to see human intelligence end in a flash, since we might be the only creatures that can look at, and ponder the why of the existance of the universe.
Order of Kilopi
Suppose only one nation decides to avoid dying. Let's say, China.
They won't ask for votes, they won't fill out public opinion polls. They'll march into factories and say "You, you, and you. Your new job is making rockets." (or pusher plates for Orions, or whatever) And in 100 years they'll probably succeed in making a functional habitat somewhere out of the danger zone-- Phobos, for example.
The number of people who "want" to do it will be irrelevant. Even those who don't, will have to go with the program or go to jail, at least.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Moderator
I am of the opposite opinion :)
I think everyone here is *over*estimating the capabilities we have.
The first premise in the OP itself, which up till now, everyone has accepted uncritically, actually seems the most far-fetched part of this discussion!
Order of Kilopi
Actually there has been dissenting opinion...
And it's a thought-experiment; First, assume a spherical disaster movie...
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Established Member
This is a very good point. IMO we'd be far more likely to wipe ourselves out from warfare before we get a chance to actually launch the ship(s). Once people realized they were free to indulge in the conflicts they've been keeping relatively restrained for generations without any real repercussions it'd be pretty much game over - they're dead either way.
Established Member
If you based it solely on a person's ability to describe their importance in an essay, wouldn't you just end up with the best writers in the world and the most convincing narcissists in the world?
Something tells me a ship full of scribes and con artists wouldn't be the most efficient model..
Order of Kilopi
There's 100 years of repercussions before the next Big Whack. People are violent, yes, but we're talking 4 or 5 generations still to come. Almost everyone who was alive to hear of the first announcement would be dead anyway by the time it hit. And fighting over territory would suddenly seem very foolish since it wouldn't be there for long. So, yes, there would be wars, and panic, but probably not all-out global anarchy-- at least not lasting 100 years.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Established Member
You are so right. Absolutely, but it would be a very few who would get off their hinders and do something. In fact, there would be many who would try to interefere with the attemps of the few. Many doubters who will claim, "no danger".
Established Member
My question would be (not hypothetical, I know nothing about CLESS systems), which would be better - devoting the resources we have to building one or a small handful of ships to get a small group of people to a habitable planet where they'll probably have millions of years to develop their technology as humanity rebuilds, or building a large fleet of small lifeboats that stay here in the solar system where we're entirely dependent on our technology to survive?
I'd imagine that both the one-shot interstellar mission and the orbiting habitats have drawbacks uniquely their own. The interstellar colonization would be vastly more complex, save fewer individual people, be constantly stymied by hitting the limits of what our technology is capable of and having to push further, infighting over who gets to go and who doesn't, and blatant sabotage from the losers in the lottery/selection process.
The habitats would have the disadvantage that every industrialized nation would essentially be able to build their own so there's less incentive for cooperation. There would be a large number of smaller individual projects rather than a single joint one, so groups would constantly be reinventing the wheel.
And ultimately what they're creating are a lot of lifeboats to pile in what's left of the human race on impact day. If our technology isn't good enough to create CLESS that's able to sustain us indefinitely, why are we jumping into lifeboats and floating around in solar system that can not and never will naturally support us, rather than building a ship to get us to dry land when ours sinks?
Something tells me that both habitats *and* the interstellar mission would be attempted, but if it's an either/or proposition, you're sacrificing many more individuals of the human race to try the interstellar jump, but if your gambit works the human race is no longer threatened with extinction because you've reached a new planet that can support it. If you try the habitats you're saving a lot more individuals, but at the risk of a higher potential for the extinction of the entire species if you aren't able to develop better technologies before your habitats can no longer sustain you as you haven't even attempted to move somewhere safe, you've only delayed the inevitable by sticking people in tin cans and hoping you'll rig a truly closed system before the habitats begin to fail.
Order of Kilopi
I think what you're missing is the fact that they have a century to build, test and develop those technologies. That's probably not going to be long enough for creating a viable, reliable and completely self-sustaining starship that will work without fail for a 22 LY trip. But it is long enough to construct habitats and supporting infrastructure that, while they may need occasional maintainence or or raw materials to make up inevitable small losses, are near the resources needed to do just that. Say we put our prospective habitats and the factories that built them (and can build others to take up later population growth) around Ceres, or near Phobos (which is also thought to have water). Running out of O2? Tap some ice, add electricity (solar or nuclear), and you've got it. Along with hydrogen which has a variety of other uses. Run low on it on a starship? You die.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
The "dry land" is not only much farther away than the equivalent of sailing all the way around the world, it also may not be safe for humans even if it looks that way from a vast distance. We can only remotely detect a very limited amount of information on a planet, even if our technology takes a massive leap beyond what it is today. Perhaps someday (not anywhere close to it now) we will be able to determine things like atmospheric spectroanalysis overl ight-years, but that does not preclude chemically incompatible or overly aggressive native life, or biohazards-- or competing intelligence from natives with a home-ground advantage. Or a global climate shift or other natural disaster during the massively long trip to reach it.
A starship is a habitat, one that has to remain fully closed for centuries to millenia, and has less of everything that an orbital habitat has access to. Only what it can carry, and every gram of cargo means much more energy to get it moving or stop it.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Established Member
Ok, I can see your point there, I think I may have taken the ship/ocean analogy a bit too far. I'm just imagining once civilization is wiped out that the struggle to advance becomes a lot more difficult and the habitats become a constant job in patching and gathering resources rather than a working research and development project. But that wouldn't necessarily be the case.
Established Member
In weighing the starship vs habitat decision, again if it has to be either/or, I'm assuming that we're able to work out a reliable way to get it there and that we're going to be launching a relatively small number of people, so resources aren't really the issue - it's survival once you reach the destination, which if you take the OP's scenario at face value isn't an issue either.
I think both methods, sending the interstellar ship to save a small number, or building a large number of interplanetary habitats to save all or most of of the human race, are equally difficult. From a risk/reward standpoint (with the only relevant reward being the continuation of the human race) I find it difficult to see one as more appealing than the other because I think they're both entail roughly equal levels of risk.
Which brings me back to my question, which would be harder from a CLSS standpoint and why? I think that's what it comes down to.
Order of Kilopi
The starship. The CLSS has to be as totally closed as possible, as it has no chance to replace losses. It has to stay that way reliably for X number of centuries.
If a crop fails on one of several habitats, or a vital system breaks down, or your pipes leak and you need more water, you can get support from the other habs around you. If it happens even once on a starship, that's it.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
You're not the only one to do that. IIRC I actually started a thread a while back to challenge the analogy. I think a better analogy for interstellar (and possibly even interplanetary) space travel is moving through a very thick, thorny hedge. It takes a very long time to get through it, once you're halfway you can't turn back, and you probably won't survive the crossing.
Established Member
I noticed a few people mentioned going to move or destroy the asteroid. Just a point, the OP has the object the size of Mars...so I think moving it even a fraction is out of the question, probably so as to make the Earth's destruction a sure thing for the exercise of the rest of the OP.
The number one goal is survival, no matter where you go. So the question I think is, would trying to build an interstellar mission sacrifice population numbers? That is, we put all effort into building the best closed system ship capable of reaching wherever we're going, but would that restrict how many we can actually send, vs. a much easier method of keeping it "local" and making as many places here to evacuate to (and evacuate, something that would take time too). We can always go somewhere else after the disaster, if enough of us survive it.
Established Member
but you would never get 7 billion people working on the problem.
You would still need the farmers to farm the fields, the hospital workers to tend the sick, the power station workers to provide power.
There is a limit to the resources you could dedicate to one aim.
Order of Kilopi
Yes, we discussed that pretty extensively starting here.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote