Which advance will humanity achieve first? (poll)

[Justin Swanton]

I love this post! The problem is that fantasists get preoccupied by individual technical challenges and their potential solutions. They do not consider the whole, as you wisely do Justin.

We must have coffee sometime. Give you the chance to discover how much of a dorkus I really am.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

We must have coffee sometime. Give you the chance to discover how much of a dorkus I really am.

I only have coffee with people who vote with me in sff polls. Looks like I'm going to be on my own.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I only have coffee with people who vote with me in sff polls. Looks like I'm going to be on my own.

Arrange a little return airfare from S.A. to Canada and I'll vote wherever you tell me to.

PS: Not really, I hate long flights.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I view either as unlikely in the extreme. In lieu of immortality, I suggest that it is highly likely that there will be an increase in median lifespan (i.e. more people living longer). There are some incredible challenges to extending the maximum lifespan, mostly due to inaccurate cell replication (deterioration in functionality, malignant cancer growth) and the inability to regenerate some cell types. In the nearer term, some of the physical decline may be further offset through artificial means (biomechanical implants, etc.), but extending the life and enabling the regeneration of neural cells seems to be an incredibly large hurdle, but is probably the most crucial to allow the extension of the maximum lifespan.

Spaceflight seems limited by physics and economic benefit; there is a limit to costs and money that can be spent for ego gratification. A great deal of energy is required to overcome the force of gravity, both for take-off and reentry. This is unlikely to change. There is a limit on the amount of acceleration that the human body can withstand and this is unlikely to change. As a result, the duration in which a biome must be transported and maintained is extended. This helps to drive up costs. Without a large potential benefit, the major factor to drive overcoming this costs comes down to ego, individual or national.

I would predict continued, incremental increases in the average lifespan. I feel that a manned trip to the moon is somewhat likely, but no sustained presence, just one or a small number of short duration missions. I suspect that Earth orbit space stations will also be unlikely; the expenses seem to outweigh and potential manufacturing benefit and the need for human presence for scientific research seems low. There will likely be continued use of unmanned exploration, but not manned.

 

[OuttaInc]

I voted for Mars because I think we could probably achieve that today with today’s tech if we *really* wanted to (or needed to.)

Besides, I think natural time limits on our lives are a good thing if for no other reason than it gives our progeny an opportunity to come into their own without the spectre of us older generations judging them or constantly telling them what to do. It liberates them from our old, outdated ideas.

 

[Swank]

There is a limit on the amount of acceleration that the human body can withstand and this is unlikely to change.

What does that have to do with going to Mars? The only acceleration that exceeds 1G is leaving the earth.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I view either as unlikely in the extreme. In lieu of immortality, I suggest that it is highly likely that there will be an increase in median lifespan (i.e. more people living longer). There are some incredible challenges to extending the maximum lifespan, mostly due to inaccurate cell replication (deterioration in functionality, malignant cancer growth) and the inability to regenerate some cell types. In the nearer term, some of the physical decline may be further offset through artificial means (biomechanical implants, etc.), but extending the life and enabling the regeneration of neural cells seems to be an incredibly large hurdle, but is probably the most crucial to allow the extension of the maximum lifespan.

Spaceflight seems limited by physics and economic benefit; there is a limit to costs and money that can be spent for ego gratification. A great deal of energy is required to overcome the force of gravity, both for take-off and reentry. This is unlikely to change. There is a limit on the amount of acceleration that the human body can withstand and this is unlikely to change. As a result, the duration in which a biome must be transported and maintained is extended. This helps to drive up costs. Without a large potential benefit, the major factor to drive overcoming this costs comes down to ego, individual or national.

I would predict continued, incremental increases in the average lifespan. I feel that a manned trip to the moon is somewhat likely, but no sustained presence, just one or a small number of short duration missions. I suspect that Earth orbit space stations will also be unlikely; the expenses seem to outweigh and potential manufacturing benefit and the need for human presence for scientific research seems low. There will likely be continued use of unmanned exploration, but not manned.

I have to agree with most of your major points here Wayne. Personally I think we'll be getting to some sort of commercial fusion before either of the two choices above.

With regards to 'immortality' as has been defined in this thread, we actually already have the basic hacks to extend lifespans - we know what diets, activity and preventative medical tests (and corrective measures if necessary) can be done to make a significant difference...yet when a population given all the tools and information to do so, many don't do it. (He says cracking open a Saturday beer ) Cue obesity crisis etc.

On the pessimistic side, there may be advances on the deeper issues on prolonging life, but working on prolonging the generations of humanity that are causing a great extinction and ecological disaster on this planet on the scale of an asteroid strike is, looking at it from the outside, madness. Perhaps put 'fixing the planet' before anything as well.

Regarding manned missions, NASA was due to return to the moon in 2024, but I think that's been postponed quite a bit. I am somewhat mixed on Mars - it would be a big thing to do such a mission but I fear it would only be done for the prestige rather than any other reason, a bit like the reason for the Moon shot. At least I can't currently see a good reason - I'd rather we did a bit more unmanned exploration and science at the moment. There's loads of excellent missions we could commission. Why travel all that distance just to drop ourselves inside another gravity well. And thinking about terraforming the place...we are well off the sort of energy and mass manipulation that would make such an endeavour feasible. At least for a while.

Personally I'd prefer a move towards "orbitals" (i.e. O'Neil Cylinders) - so more Bezos than Musk. Building in space will be closer to Earth and should kick start industry and asteroid mining if and when we get serious about building big. Also we will be practicing building 'spaceships' which we can then build on when/if we move onwards.

 

[Dave]

I voted Mars before reading the thread, sorry.

I voted for Mars because I think we could probably achieve that today with today’s tech if we *really* wanted to (or needed to.)

I agree with this. Technologically speaking, the mission could leave tomorrow if it was simply a manned Mars landing. It might take a few missions before the astronauts survived death and sensory deprivation, and were able to return, and this is not living on Mars. As already mentioned, the financial cost would be huge. What would be the point of doing it? What short-term benefits are there against that cost to make it an economically viable proposition?

Much more likely we will put a base on the Moon first, then build spacecraft there, where the low gravity means less fuel to take-off. What is learned while living for short periods on the moonbase would be used to decide if living on Mars (or anywhere else) for any period of time is possible. As already mentioned, robotically operated unmanned spacecraft would be much more likely.

I understand. Immortal is probably the wrong word, but can human life be significantly extended

That is an entirely different question. We have already extended the human life-span from three-score-years with medicine, nutrition, antibiotics and immunisation. I see no reason why that won't continue, but to live forever is entirely another thing.

As already mentioned, our cells are pre-programmed to wear out. I expect that in the very long-term, it might eventually be possible to change that, but the benefit would be to individuals. I can't see any benefit to humanity in achieving this, and others have pointed out all the negatives it would create.

Cause of death stats from life insurance companies indicate that, on average, immortal people would still die of an accident somewhere between 700-800 years of age.

This is important too. Death will still take place, from accidents (unintentional injuries) or Homicide/Murder, War (intentional injuries). Even the idea of immortality where the brain exists in a jar or as a computer program, could end by an accidents or foul play. No one can live forever. Even fictional scottish swordsmen can get beheaded.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Much more likely we will put a base on the Moon first, then build spacecraft there, where the low gravity means less fuel to take-off. What is learned while living for short periods on the moonbase would be used to decide if living on Mars (or anywhere else) for any period of time is possible. As already mentioned, robotically operated unmanned spacecraft would be much more likely.

Not sure about this. The Moon landings were able to take place thanks to a unique combination of circumstances: first, a healthy and growing US economy which left plenty of cash available for such an undertaking; secondly, a boundless optimism and enthusiasm for progress which the government was happy to foster by spectacular technological feats like getting men on the moon; thirdly, a cold war that had nearly become a hot one, and in which the US had been humiliated twice by Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin. To wipe out that shame and reassure the free world that America was still Top Nation no expense would be spared. We haven't seen a combination like that since.

We keep comparing colonising space to colonising virgin lands on Earth. You can't. Colonisation on Earth means travelling to somewhere that can, with a little labour and persistence, support the colony and render it self-sufficient and even profitable. The problem with space is that there's nowhere to go. Everything sent into space must be horribly expensive just to function, and far more expensive to keep humans alive. A human presence in space has to be supported at huge cost by Earth. And how do you make a lunar colony self-sufficient? I know people like Andy Weir think it isn't that difficult but IMHO the expense would be vast, far outweighing a short visit to Mars. The colony could never pay back a fraction of a fraction of the money spent to set it up, and once the glamour of humans living on the Moon has faded nobody will want sign those astronomical cheques.

 

[Dave]

No, I don't think you can make a lunar colony self-sufficient in either food, water or oxygen. However, there are already materials that are more easily manufactured in low gravity, and I believe there will be more of those discovered, and other additional benefits found of manufacturing in low gravity. The unmanned ships we will want to build to mine asteroids, and whatever else we want to do, still need to be built and launched from somewhere. It is much cheaper to launch them from the Moon. People will work on the Moon in the same way that they work on oil rigs or Antarctic bases. It will be worth the effort to supply them with their needs. That is not the same thing as colonisation. I agree that colonisation is unlikely. Space Tourism may become a thing though.

 

[paranoid marvin]

We should have built a permanently populated structure on the Moon by now. I'm really not sure why this wasn't done in the 70s or 80s, when the funds - but more importantly the desire - was still there. Building a settlement would have provided invaluable experience, as well as setting a stepping stone for further exploration of our solar system. The fact that this hasn't happened more than half a decade after setting foot on the Moon speaks volumes for our ability to send humans further afield.

I don't think that we will send humans to Mars until their safety can be virtually guaranteed, and that will take a lot of probes and a lot of time before it happens. At the moment I think that it is far more practicable and effective to send more and better probes to Mars that can effectively map the planet first from space and then from the surface. Probes that have the ability to traverse vast swathes of the landscape, and are capable of repairing each other as well as manufacturing more probes, as well as buildings inhabitable structures. Perhaps even (eventually) the possibility of terraforming the planet.

As for immortality, the science to replicate and rejuvenate body parts effectively is already here. It still needs to be improved and expanded upon, so that (hopefully) in the new future, no-one should need to suffer or die for the lack of a kidney, lung or heart donor. Will we be able to live in 'bionic' bodies? Why not? What I think will be more difficult to achieve is a brain that can be replaced or repaired. I'm not sure that our brains could be replicated, and even if they could I think what makes me 'me' would be lost - and if that happens, then there is no point in being immortal in the first place. But even if this were possible, could our minds cope with 100s of years of life. I'm not sure that they could, or that they should.

So in answer to the question, I think that the technology and desire and capability to extend life is much closer to being achieved than is travel to Mars. In fact, I think that we will only travel to Mars when we have hardened our bodies with replacement parts that can cope with the rigours of space travel.

I can't see the point in looking to colonise another planet if we are just going to let our own be devastated by global warming. I think we need to spend our efforts, money and the limited time we have on making Earth habitable for generations to come. Otherwise life on Mars may become a necessity far sooner than we would like.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Space Tourism may become a thing though.

Joy rides out of the atmosphere (to 100km - arbitrarily defined as 'space') will become a huge thing. And very soon. Cluttering of orbit with satellites (for various purposes) will continue to be a huge thing. All these activities are clearly profitable ventures. But why on earth would anyone start developing space travel beyond that? I mean, I could go outside and burn $10K in cash this afternoon. It is a theoretical possibility. But why would I? Sorry. Maybe a SF forum is not the best place to be such a wet blanket.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Joy rides out of the atmosphere (to 100km - arbitrarily defined as 'space') will become a huge thing. And very soon. Cluttering of orbit with satellites (for various purposes) will continue to be a huge thing. All these activities are clearly profitable ventures. But why on earth would anyone start developing space travel beyond that? I mean, I could go outside and burn $10K in cash this afternoon. It is a theoretical possibility. But why would I? Sorry. Maybe a SF forum is not the best place to be such a wet blanket.

100% agree that trips to a level where our bodies can 'float' will be a huge thing. But what will be the cost? Even if it becomes relatively affordable, will people want to spend the equivalent of 2 weeks on holiday for 60 minutes in a spacecraft?

Eventually we could have trips around the Moon, perhaps even to holiday resorts on the Moon, and maybe even the ability to have a float around in space before being picked back up. But what will be the cost? At some stage probably no more than the price of a cruise.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

So in answer to the question, I think that the technology and desire and capability to extend life is much closer to being achieved than is travel to Mars. In fact, I think that we will only travel to Mars when we have hardened our bodies with replacement parts that can cope with the rigours of space travel.

Yay! A supporter!

BTW, just to be clear, I'm talking about some kind of genetic engineering that would massively extend life (by, say, several hundred percent). I believe this is closer than people think. I'm not talking about better nutrition, transplanting brains into robots, immunity to bullets etc etc.

 

[Parson]

If you count immorality as living an active productive life for 150 years or more. It could happen in the next few hundred years. If things don't go too radically wrong (as is likely). I think a manned landing on Mars happens in the next 50 years, maybe sooner. if things don't go too radically wrong (as is quite possible).

 

[M. Robert Gibson]

If you count immorality as living an active productive life for

Freudian slip perhaps
You've still got time to edit it

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

100% agree that trips to a level where our bodies can 'float' will be a huge thing.

Agreed. At 100km, of course, gravity is virtually unchanged from that on the surface. The 'weightlessness' experienced by Branson's and Bezo's guests is the same that I experience when I jump off my bed. Except in my case it lasts one second and in theirs it lasts a couple of minutes (because they simply have further to fall).

You doubt that people will want to pay for it? There are many, many ultra rich individuals who will gladly fork out hundreds of thousands for this experience. A real money maker - I have no doubt of that! Of course, there is an environmental impact. And how can we ask ordinary people to lead responsible lives (saving energy, recycling, supporting green initiatives etc) and then watch some privileged idiot piss away their lifetime's efforts in one 10-minute joy ride?

 

[Justin Swanton]

If you count immorality as living an active productive life for 150 years or more. It could happen in the next few hundred years. If things don't go too radically wrong (as is likely). I think a manned landing on Mars happens in the next 50 years, maybe sooner. if things don't go too radically wrong (as is quite possible).

Not too sure about immorality being productive, though it can be active. But what do I know?

 

[Justin Swanton]

Agreed. At 100km, of course, gravity is virtually unchanged from that on the surface. The 'weightlessness' experienced by Branson's and Bezo's guests is the same that I experience when I jump off my bed. Except in my case it lasts one second and in theirs it lasts a couple of minutes (because they simply have further to fall).

You doubt that people will want to pay for it? There are many, many ultra rich individuals who will gladly fork out hundreds of thousands for this experience. A real money maker - I have no doubt of that! Of course, there is an environmental impact. And how can we ask ordinary people to lead responsible lives (saving energy, recycling, supporting green initiatives etc) and then watch some privileged idiot piss away their lifetime's efforts in one 10-minute joy ride?

Don't forget someone like Mark Shuttleworth, a sah theffricun like myself, who paid $20 million to spend 10 days on the ISS. With that kind of small-change pricetag Gates or Bezos could live in orbit.

 

[Pyan]

I'm with Larry Niven.

"There's everything in space. Monopoles. Metal. Vacuum for vacuum industries. A place to build cheap without all kinds of bracing girders. Free fall for people with weak hearts. Room to test things that might blow up. A place to learn physics where you can watch it happen. Controlled environments-"

A couple of points:
NASA's human spaceflight budget is about the same as the amount spent annually by Europe's football teams on player salaries.
NASA's total budget for all space activities last year worked out at less than one-twentieth of the money spent on cosmetics in the USA in the same year.

NASA budget: $24 billion: Cosmetic sales: $511 billion. Makes you think...