Probability of THS scenario - in light of the last 10 years

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Well reusable spacecraft and laser launch help a lot.

Note that "nuclear-powered spacecraft" in the sense of "spacecraft with nuclear motors" may be an unacceptable method of getting into orbit, while still leaving cheap nuclear power as the key to the solution. Laser launch facilities can make good use of the power output from big ground-based power plants.

If I was creating a somewhat-more-plausible (to me) setting based on Transhuman Space, I'd probably have very little organic human presence in space - maybe just some manned stations in LEO, if that, perhaps a token moonbase, and possibly a permanent community on Mars if I wanted to leave the terraforming bit in (which would probably imply shifting the date to 2150 or 2200). However, I'd still have a large space element - run by infomorphs.

I know that a lot of old-fashioned sentimentalists still think that "space exploration" really ought to mean shunting ill-adapted bags of colloidal organics round the system faster than they can die of radiation poisoning or discover new ways in which terrestrial evolution left them badly prepared for the job, but that doesn't really follow from the experience of successful space exploration over the last forty years, and it isn't very transhumanist. We still feel that it'd be nice to have meatbags on the scene when one of our present-day cybershell probes hits trouble, but given decent TL10 AI, or digitally uploaded human brains, all those tons of life support and shielding are going to look like a really, really stupid waste of budget.

This in turn implies a bifurcated human future - organics on Earth, infomorphs to the stars - but that sounds like a decent plot driver to me.

Originally Posted by antares

Well, if you take Austrian economists and Ron Paul seriously ...

That is what professional comedians call a "feed line", you know.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

That is what professional comedians call a "feed line", you know.

I don't take Ron Paul seriously for a moment, but I do find Hayek, Mises, and Schumpeter worthy of attention.

Bill Stoddard

[antares]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Note that "nuclear-powered spacecraft" in the sense of "spacecraft with nuclear motors" may be an unacceptable method of getting into orbit, while still leaving cheap nuclear power as the key to the solution. Laser launch facilities can make good use of the power output from big ground-based power plants.

If I was creating a somewhat-more-plausible (to me) setting based on Transhuman Space, I'd probably have very little organic human presence in space - maybe just some manned stations in LEO, if that, perhaps a token moonbase, and possibly a permanent community on Mars if I wanted to leave the terraforming bit in (which would probably imply shifting the date to 2150 or 2200). However, I'd still have a large space element - run by infomorphs.

I know that a lot of old-fashioned sentimentalists still think that "space exploration" really ought to mean shunting ill-adapted bags of colloidal organics round the system faster than they can die of radiation poisoning or discover new ways in which terrestrial evolution left them badly prepared for the job, but that doesn't really follow from the experience of successful space exploration over the last forty years, and it isn't very transhumanist. We still feel that it'd be nice to have meatbags on the scene when one of our present-day cybershell probes hits trouble, but given decent TL10 AI, or digitally uploaded human brains, all those tons of life support and shielding are going to look like a really, really stupid waste of budget.

This in turn implies a bifurcated human future - organics on Earth, infomorphs to the stars - but that sounds like a decent plot driver to me.

That is what professional comedians call a "feed line", you know.

Yep, much more realistic. Especially given the possibilities of virtual reality.

Ok, lets not get into a discussion on Ron Paul. I know he is quite a controversial figure. For my part I am unsure on his "prescription". However I think that a large part of his "diagnosis" on the state of the world is correct. And I am sad that a large part of media (at least in Germany) does not bother to analyze his positions, but rather engages in silly and debasing forms of age discrimination (calling him "guru grandpa" and similar kind stuff).

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

It may indeed not be too much fun, but neither was the end of the Roman Empire or the plague. In any case, history seems not to mind.

Oh, absolutely. But when creating a game, some element of fun is distinctly helpful. I find the apparent appeal of post-apocalypse games entirely baffling, but that's not a discussion for this forum.

[mindstalk]

I forget, do cyborgs feature much in THS? One way of getting human brains into space if via full-body cyborgs. Which themselves might come about as a treatment for old age. I've toyed with the idea of space being full of geriatric cyborgs...

[mindstalk]

'Realism':

EU is obviously having a crisis, in the eurozone and in the authoritarian swing of Hungary. I view the former as being largely self-inflicted idiocy with simple Keynesian solutions but let's not go there. However, it's the sort of thing that could lead equally well to collapse of the eurozone or to greater fiscal union and a stronger EU five years from now, with people looking back and going 'haha that was so silly'.

space: On the one hand I'm sceptical of there being easy solutions, but maybe laser launch really world work. Or StarTram, or a space fountain or launch loop. Of course, "very cheap" access to space of say $40/kg is still pretty expensive compared to most terrestrial activities.

I think the He3 economy doesn't work; from what I've read lunar He3 is too diffuse to be worth extracting for power. It could be worth extracting for space fuel, maybe, if you have some really urgent reason to go fast and far into space. But chicken and egg. Sucking He3 from Saturn, I dunno. Of course we have yet to get even the simplest form of fusion to produce power, let alone a rather harder one.

bioroids: seem massively unlikely to me. Lots of effort for little unique gain, and with lots of legal problems attached.

AI/uploading: who knows? We're still a long way off but we're still on an exponential curve. By 2100 I can believe anything from "failed dream (though automation will be better)" to "having AI of only human intelligence is laughably conservative and the economy is dominated by xoxes".

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by mindstalk

I forget, do cyborgs feature much in THS? One way of getting human brains into space if via full-body cyborgs. Which themselves might come about as a treatment for old age. I've toyed with the idea of space being full of geriatric cyborgs...

Cyborgs aren't mentioned much in canon, but they're logically quite plausible given the setting technology, and I think that David even ran off a template at one point. Or see Ultra-Tech, I think.

However, as a form of geriatric medicine, cyborgisation is really a bit crap. Sure, it solves problems involving various organ failures, but if you get around those, in the end, it's senility and Alzheimers that we have to worry about. If your brain is deteriorating due to neurological problems, putting it in a tin box probably won't stop the decline.

Given a different set of tech assumptions to those in TS, though, yeah, I could imagine a cyborg-based space programme.

[Flyndaran]

That assumes that it wouldn't be easy to radically decrease the biological stresses on a brain. Blood pressure goes through too much, then too little by our inefficient pulse. Blood sugar goes through a similar if even harsher roller coaster ride. Evening all these things out might have a profound effect on brain health and longevity.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by mindstalk

I think the He3 economy doesn't work; from what I've read lunar He3 is too diffuse to be worth extracting for power. It could be worth extracting for space fuel, maybe, if you have some really urgent reason to go fast and far into space.

For power production, basic physics favors D-T fusion even if He3 can be scooped up locally in buckets and dumped into the reactor. For a given reactor volume and magnet/confinement setup, the D-T option gives on the order of 80 times more power than a D-He3 plasma (and He3-He3 doesn't even start, it always loses more energy to bremsstrahlung than is gained by fusion). And this isn't counting the additional energy gained by breeding tritium from neutrons on lithium. D-T does produce 80% of its energy in the form of fast neutrons, which is inconvenient, but it is a difference in a factor of two or three increase in reactor cost to capture the neutron energy in a lithium blanket and run a heat exchanger off the lithium metal to spin a turbine compared to a factor of 80 cost increase to get the same power out of D-He3. You also have to deal with neutron activation issues slowing down your maintenance cycles while you wait for the radioactivity to die away (assuming you are using real people here, and not rad-tolerant robots). Note however that D-He3 also produces a lot of neutrons - about as much as an equal power fission plant - due to D-D side reactions, so you have the same problem although to a lesser extent with He3 fusion. You will still need massive shielding around the D-He3 plant, for example.

Luke

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by mindstalk

I view the former as being largely self-inflicted idiocy with simple Keynesian solutions but let's not go there. However, it's the sort of thing that could lead equally well to collapse of the eurozone or to greater fiscal union and a stronger EU five years from now, with people looking back and going 'haha that was so silly'.

As I see it, the latter is precisely the thing that won't happen. The problem is that the monetary union in its present state does not work because of fundamental flaws - it creates greater and greater economic imbalances which will eventually destroy the whole system. The solution to the problem is either an economic "return to the nation state" - which the majority of the European political, economical and journalistic elites do not want - or, as you say, a greater fiscal union and stronger EU. However, here the problem is simply, that the majority of the people do not want it.

In Europe, Dutch still want to stay Dutch, Italians want to stay Italians, French want to be French and it is for sure and certain that the British prefer to be British. Even the Germans, the people which have attempted to cleanse themselves of nationalist sentiment more than any other, would still prefer to stay Germans.

In the end, the nation state, which has developed over centuries in Europe, is an emotional thing and Europe's various national populations are apparently not ready to transfer their affections to a transnational superstate, especially not within the span of only a few decades. Some intellectuals may have considered themselves as true Europeans since more than a hundred years, but the vast majority of the people simply does not do so.

With the European nations being democracies, it does matter a lot what the majority thinks. For those who wanted to press on with a pro-integration agenda, this problem should have already become apparent during the last few decades. Whenever a major step in the direction of a more integrated EU was undertaken, there was always the danger that this or that nation would reject it, especially if a public referendum was held about the matter (sometimes even a national parliament did the rejection). And if we had had a public referendum in Germany about the issue wether the Euro should be introduced or not, the German population would have rejected this also, because the new currency had never an approval rating of so much as 50% before its introduction.

Of course, no referendum about the matter was held in Germany. And the people may have swallowed that, if the Euro had only worked. But it has not. We are now at a point where I can't think of a way how the more integrated fiscal union of Europe could possibly be legitimized by democratic means. Our political and journalistic "elites" seem to sense that as well, and I cannot remember a time when they appeared as utterly clueless as they do now. (It seems very possible that, within the next months, Spain will fiscally begin to go down the drains, and it seems already likely that all our politicans will do is to stand by and wring their hands.)

To sum it up: Europe is at a decision point. It can take a large step back, against the will of its elites, but this might turn out to be economically disastrous. Or it could theoretically take a large step forward, but it can't really, because this would be against the will of the majority of the population, and even if it could do so, it might still turn out to be economically disastrous. And for Europe not to take any steps at all will most certainly be fatal.
It does not look as if there is much of a chance that this crisis will be over within the span of only five or even ten years, after which we will already be able to look back on the affair with mirth.