Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house", or "environment"; -λογία, "study of")[A] is a branch of biology[1] concerning interactions among organisms and their biophysical environment, which includes both biotic and abiotic components.
Furthermore, from a thought experiment point of view: if we jump a thousand or two thousand years into the future, it’s hard to imagine that the Earth retains individual nations but the rest of the universe is managed by a UN-like organization. The moon, maybe, but beyond that seems highly unlikely.
on edit: not that this gives the U.S rights to it, but ecological destruction is not a result of the U.S exploiting the Moon.
Countries are thinking of planets as resources to be extracted and profit from, which in itself is incorrect, imo.
This is a kinder way of living in harmony with our nature (again imo) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lc_dlVrg5M
> How much energy would it require to first build and then transport resources from other planets back to earth etc ? What would be the impact in case during re-entry with resource payload from other planets, a spacecraft propelled by nuclear energy bursts ? What are the other unknowns which we are willing to take for granted ?
A lot, no doubt, but still probably less than having energy and industrial production on Earth, in the long term.
Also, if countries co-operate on space exploration it would be better, than making it a race to be first etc. Which will only lead to worse outcomes between nations if history is any indicator. :)
Not in any sense which is meaningful on a human scale.
> Civilizations may collapse before we accomplish everything we set out to do on other planets
I still don't think it matters. A nuclear war could set back Earth by centuries or millenniums, but barring some sort of total worldwide wipe of electronic data, the information and knowledge will still be out there. I'd say it's inevitable that over time, humans will re-centralize and re-organize. Again, it may take thousands and thousands of years, but on the timescale of the universe, this is nothing.
> if countries co-operate on space exploration it would be better, than making it a race to be first etc. Which will only lead to worse outcomes between nations if history is any indicator. :)
This sounds ideal, but I don't think history actually supports it. The prime achievements of American space travel came during the peak of the Cold War. Civilizations seem to benefit from having competition, as long as they don't destroy / are destroyed by them. It's a fine balance.
Nietzsche writes about this a bit during his discussion of the Ancient Greek concept of agon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agon
https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/voegelin/wp-content/uploads/...
Tbh, i am enjoying your arguments as such!
> barring some sort of total worldwide wipe of electronic data, the information and knowledge will still be out there
Isn't the world shifting in its warfare strategies ? We fought with different tools at different times. But the modern warfare seems to be moving towards misinformation, destruction of information etc ?
> I'd say it's inevitable that over time, humans will re-centralize and re-organize.
Agreed! It seems that eventually we would have to re-organize!
> Civilizations seem to benefit from having competition, as long as they don't destroy / are destroyed by them. It's a fine balance.
Agree with this one too, but i am more worried about generations that would follow us. It is a very fine balance indeed, hope humanity treads it with reason :)
Well, I meant more like basic industrial and scientific knowledge, e.g., that petroleum can be used as a fuel, or that the universe is quite large and the Earth revolves around the Sun. Even if 99% of the world's civilizations were erased and you had a zombie/nuclear/etc. hellscape, I don't see people losing this basic sort of knowledge. It's simply too pervasive. The idea of humanity returning to a caveman-level of knowledge seems unlikely to me.
> It is a very fine balance indeed, hope humanity treads it with reason :)
Agreed!
Agreed! :)
Also, do you have or maintain a list of great books which you came across ? I see your profile, and you mention "Philosopher, writer and entrepreneur traveling the world."
I would love to see your bookshelf :)
- Nietzsche's Philosophy of Religion by Julian Young
- The Portable Nietzsche by Kaufmann
- A Secular Age by Charles Taylor
- The Art of the Islamic Garden by Emma Clark
- Notes on Culture by T. S. Eliot
- In Praise of Shadows by Tanizaki
- The Qur'an: Oxford World Classics
- On Bohemia by Graña
- The Last Samurai by Helen DeWitt
- The Individual and His Property by Stirner
If you start maintaining a list, would there be a way to know that ? Would you be sharing here on HN ?
We have plenty of problems to solve here on earth. Is technology only about solving for curiosity of what is possible ? Or is technology about solving real problems of energy, minimal impact to the environment etc ?
The ocean cleanup project is a good example of solving problems for humanity here on earth. Now that we managed to dump enormous amounts of plastic into our waterways and eventually into oceans. There are other interesting problems which beg technological solutions too.
I would be happy if those who downvoted without reading the entire argument, would also contribute their views on why this argument is wrong :)
If the drafting is completed under the Trump Administration, I suspect it will be tilted towards a free-for-all, but it will need buy-in at least from the Europeans and Japanese (who are building and funding big chunks of the new US moon effort) who will want some form of multilateral control.