A moon base and thermodynamics

[Eric Mc]

Shaolin said:

I'm guessing that the technology to detect and push asteroids off target is easier to develop than launching mankind into space with no coming back (and an equal chance of being hit by asteroids).

I doubt it.

At some point I expect that there will be two species of humans - those who left and those who stayed behind.

If we don't do the former - there will be no humans at all.

[southendpier]

Eric Mc said:

I doubt it.

At some point I expect that there will be two species of humans - those who left and those who stayed behind.

I we don't do the former - there will be no humans at all.

And both of those will likely to be in evolution terms about as similar to us now as we are to the earliest mammals. If we are talking about a few million years hence.

[MartG]

TheHeretic said:

Because one extinction event, and the human race could be a goner. If you want to mine asteroids, etc, you still have to go and get them, mine them, and so on. Either way, we need to leave the planet to do so.

[annodomini2]

Shaolin said:

I'm guessing that the technology to detect and push asteroids off target is easier to develop than launching mankind into space with no coming back (and an equal chance of being hit by asteroids).

From an accounting perspective, yes.

from a mission critical perspective, no.

there's stuff beyond asteroids, war, disease etc

[SpeckledJim]

Some Gump said:

Shaolin said:

I don't really understand the leaving earth idea. We already live on a beuatiful fully resourced planet where we can live without any environmental modifications. A better approach surely would be to keep the earth clean and mine some lifeless bits of rock in space for their minerals, bring them back and leave ours intact to enjoy the life and landscape on top of them. Keep the filth and dirt somewhere already dead.

Have you not seen the documentary Alien? Total Recall?

Space missions to mine st always ends in tears..

Perhaps, but who's the last human?

Dave Lister.

[Eric Mc]

annodomini2 said:

Shaolin said:

I'm guessing that the technology to detect and push asteroids off target is easier to develop than launching mankind into space with no coming back (and an equal chance of being hit by asteroids).

From an accounting perspective, yes.

from a mission critical perspective, no.

there's stuff beyond asteroids, war, disease etc

So far we KNOW that asteroids more than likely wiped a whole class of life out. We haven't come across evidence of war or disease doing that yet.

[annodomini2]

Eric Mc said:

annodomini2 said:

Shaolin said:

I'm guessing that the technology to detect and push asteroids off target is easier to develop than launching mankind into space with no coming back (and an equal chance of being hit by asteroids).

From an accounting perspective, yes.

from a mission critical perspective, no.

there's stuff beyond asteroids, war, disease etc

So far we KNOW that asteroids more than likely wiped a whole class of life out. We haven't come across evidence of war or disease doing that yet.

Doesn't mean it's implausible.

We know Global Scale Nuclear War is CAPABLE.

We know that due to advances and widespread use drugs we are seeing rapid mutation of diseases, which suggests that it may be possible that something appears in the future that could wipe out an entire species. If not several.

Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't and doesn't mean we shouldn't have preparations in place.

[annodomini2]

Bedazzled said:

If we colonise another planet, one will have something the other finds in short supply; how long until war breaks out between the two?

Water or Energy usually and about 5 mins after the colonised planet tries to declare independence from the government(s) of Earth.

[Simpo Two]

annodomini2 said:

Doesn't mean it's implausible.

We know Global Scale Nuclear War is CAPABLE.

We know that due to advances and widespread use drugs we are seeing rapid mutation of diseases, which suggests that it may be possible that something appears in the future that could wipe out an entire species. If not several.

The chance of a disease killing every single human on the planet is, I would suggest, biologically and geographically impossible. You say drugs are making pathogens mutate - well in fact they are selecting for resistant strains, but not every human on the planet has the luxury of first world medicine. You could drop anthrax on New York - but a tribe in Botswana or Nepal would be unaffected and the survivors would expand into the void left by the victims. It would also take time for a disease to spread - time to start taking preventive measures and work on vaccines. So no, I don't think H. sapiens is going to be wiped out by disease. Even if you kill 99.99% of the population, you still have a massive gene pool from which repopulation would begin.

[TheHeretic]

Simpo Two said:

The chance of a disease killing every single human on the planet is, I would suggest, biologically and geographically impossible. You say drugs are making pathogens mutate - well in fact they are selecting for resistant strains, but not every human on the planet has the luxury of first world medicine. You could drop anthrax on New York - but a tribe in Botswana or Nepal would be unaffected and the survivors would expand into the void left by the victims. It would also take time for a disease to spread - time to start taking preventive measures and work on vaccines. So no, I don't think H. sapiens is going to be wiped out by disease. Even if you kill 99.99% of the population, you still have a massive gene pool from which repopulation would begin.

Man was down to 10,000 apparently at one point.

[Eric Mc]

Good job there were some women around

[TheHeretic]

Eric Mc said:

Good job there were some women around

Thankfully they were a bit slutty at the time too.

[annodomini2]

Simpo Two said:

annodomini2 said:

Doesn't mean it's implausible.

We know Global Scale Nuclear War is CAPABLE.

We know that due to advances and widespread use drugs we are seeing rapid mutation of diseases, which suggests that it may be possible that something appears in the future that could wipe out an entire species. If not several.

The chance of a disease killing every single human on the planet is, I would suggest, biologically and geographically impossible. You say drugs are making pathogens mutate - well in fact they are selecting for resistant strains, but not every human on the planet has the luxury of first world medicine. You could drop anthrax on New York - but a tribe in Botswana or Nepal would be unaffected and the survivors would expand into the void left by the victims. It would also take time for a disease to spread - time to start taking preventive measures and work on vaccines. So no, I don't think H. sapiens is going to be wiped out by disease. Even if you kill 99.99% of the population, you still have a massive gene pool from which repopulation would begin.

It's not impossible, just the odds are low.

Diseases can have multiple spreading mechanisms. Where say birds are infected, but not affected by the infection. etc

We know disease can be lethal, the key part is IF we could discover a mechanism of protection and/or cure before everyone is infected. Especially those with the skill base to create the cure.

[Simpo Two]

annodomini2 said:

Diseases can have multiple spreading mechanisms. Where say birds are infected, but not affected by the infection. etc

True, 'vectors' - eg rats carrying plague bacteria. IIRC the plague killed 1/3 of the population of Europe - but 2/3 survived somehow, with no knowledge of hygiene or microbiology whatsoever. But I can't envisage any mechanism by which a disease is going to (a) reach (b) kill every single human being on the planet. Nature just doesn't work like that.

annodomini2 said:

We know disease can be lethal, the key part is IF we could discover a mechanism of protection and/or cure before everyone is infected. Especially those with the skill base to create the cure.

Too many science fiction films

Although with a small closed environment like a moon base, yes, that could be wiped out if external help couldn't be obtained.

[annodomini2]

Simpo Two said:

annodomini2 said:

Diseases can have multiple spreading mechanisms. Where say birds are infected, but not affected by the infection. etc

True, 'vectors' - eg rats carrying plague bacteria. IIRC the plague killed 1/3 of the population of Europe - but 2/3 survived somehow, with no knowledge of hygiene or microbiology whatsoever. But I can't envisage any mechanism by which a disease is going to (a) reach (b) kill every single human being on the planet. Nature just doesn't work like that.

annodomini2 said:

We know disease can be lethal, the key part is IF we could discover a mechanism of protection and/or cure before everyone is infected. Especially those with the skill base to create the cure.

Too many science fiction films

Although with a small closed environment like a moon base, yes, that could be wiped out if external help couldn't be obtained.

Just because, as far as we know, it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can never happen.

Like I said, the odds are low, but saying it could never happen invites disaster.

I agree films do try to create a sense of paranoia, this is how they sell the film's concept.

The best plans usually prepare for the worst.

[Einion Yrth]

annodomini2 said:

Bedazzled said:

If we colonise another planet, one will have something the other finds in short supply; how long until war breaks out between the two?

Water or Energy usually and about 5 mins after the colonised planet tries to declare independence from the government(s) of Earth.

Jeebus, warfare is expensive enough on Earth - over interplanetary distances I suspect it would be infeasible until a time when scarcities are no longer an issue - there is a lot to mine out there guys.

[Simpo Two]

annodomini2 said:

Just because, as far as we know, it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can never happen.

Like I said, the odds are low, but saying it could never happen invites disaster...

The best plans usually prepare for the worst.

If the human race is going to be completely destroyed by this disease you are sure is going to happen eventually, what plan could you possibly conceive to deal with it? Make seven billion doses of vaccine and get one to every person on the planet? I really do think that in this case a little knowledge of the systems by which pathogens spread and infect will help you sleep better at night

Open question - are there any examples in nature/history where an entire global species has been wiped out by disease?

[Shaolin]

Simpo Two said:

Open question - are there any examples in nature/history where an entire global species has been wiped out by disease?

I very much doubt it, just small isolated genetically similar populations, like errr... a moon base or similar for instance.

[mrmr96]

Simpo Two said:

Open question - are there any examples in nature/history where an entire global species has been wiped out by disease?

We're in the jet age now - disease can/will spread faster than ever in the planets history.

[annodomini2]

Einion Yrth said:

annodomini2 said:

Bedazzled said:

If we colonise another planet, one will have something the other finds in short supply; how long until war breaks out between the two?

Water or Energy usually and about 5 mins after the colonised planet tries to declare independence from the government(s) of Earth.

Jeebus, warfare is expensive enough on Earth - over interplanetary distances I suspect it would be infeasible until a time when scarcities are no longer an issue - there is a lot to mine out there guys.

True, but never underestimate the desire for power.