17 votes

Tim O'Reilly: The fundamental problem with Silicon Valley’s favorite growth strategy

16 comments

  1. [16]
    Ordinator
    Link
    I don't know that this has anything to do with Silicon Valley. They're just the logical extension of our entire economic system that relies on constant growth to sustain itself. Even if we manage...

    I don't know that this has anything to do with Silicon Valley. They're just the logical extension of our entire economic system that relies on constant growth to sustain itself. Even if we manage to move beyond Earth, with compounding growth, we're going to have eaten up the entire solar system within a few hundred years, and baring some fundamental physics breakthroughs that's probably the end of the line.

    7 votes
    1. [14]
      cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Even though none of us alive right now probably need worry about it, this honestly scares me more than anything else: If it turns out there is actually no way for us to functionally travel (or...

      baring some fundamental physics breakthroughs that's probably the end of the line.

      Even though none of us alive right now probably need worry about it, this honestly scares me more than anything else:

      If it turns out there is actually no way for us to functionally travel (or communicate) faster than the speed of light, then the universe suddenly gets a whole lot less full of interesting possibilities. Even without FTL we could still potentially travel/expand via generational ships and/or with suspended animation, but that would ultimately make galactic expansion an incredibly slow process and extremely isolating for us as a species. No FTL also makes it incredibly unlikely we will ever be able to discover intelligent life, if it is out there somewhere, which is another depressing thought.

      One of the things I love most about scifi, as opposed to pure fantasy (e.g. LOTR), is that most of it at least still feels somewhat possible, albeit in the distant future... but without FTL, 99% of scifi (other than near-future hard-scifi) basically becomes just as purely fantastical as Tolkien. :(

      7 votes
      1. [12]
        NeoTheFox
        Link Parent
        Hey, even without an FTL a massive spaceship can be built that would be a home to multiple generations of people can be built in theory, even with modern tech - all we need is a virtually endless...

        Hey, even without an FTL a massive spaceship can be built that would be a home to multiple generations of people can be built in theory, even with modern tech - all we need is a virtually endless power souce. Maybe cryofreeze would be another option - again, with a source of energy. It all comes to energy in the end, and we do have a few ways of getting there, no fundamental problems exists for cold fusion, for example. It's not as exiting to send an automated coffin with a lot of frozen people in hope that in thousand years it would arrive at its destination as a space filled with zipping around spaceships, but it's much more realistic. Luckily our advancements in AI would make it possible to create a system that would be able to maintain itself for this long. Or another possibility is on the horizon - we might finally get to the digital immortality, and then space travel becomes a lot easier. Future never looks like old science fiction, because people that make fiction take inspiration from the current day, an then something comes up and flips the whole thing on its head. My favorite example is Asimov's work - his robots are very complex imitations of biological lifeforms, because there were no digital electronics when he written these novels. His laws of robotics and the idea of a thinking machine with its own will are still incorporated into today's world, people still discuss the theoretical AI uprising, but it couldn't be further from the truth, even Asimov himself tried to address this in a book about AIs ruling the world.
        As for intelligent life, I am not sure I would want to meet any other life forms. There aren't many scenarios where such an encounter would result in something productive. I am firmly in the camp of Stanisław Lem on that - a truly alien mind would most likely be incapable of interacting meaningfully with humans. I suggest his books "Solaris" and "Fiasco" to see two possible scenarios, and I consider "Fiasco" to be the best tragedy ever written.

        5 votes
        1. [7]
          Ordinator
          Link Parent
          That's, at best, insanely optimistic. The truth is, even if you added an infinite power source to our current tech, we still probably couldn't do this for a number of reasons. Perhaps most...

          even without an FTL a massive spaceship can be built that would be a home to multiple generations of people can be built in theory, even with modern tech

          That's, at best, insanely optimistic. The truth is, even if you added an infinite power source to our current tech, we still probably couldn't do this for a number of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, we don't have any idea which of the hundreds of exoplanets we've found might be habitable. We'll probably figure that out in the next hundred years or so, but we still have problems. The nearest habitable exoplanet is likely to be hundreds of light-years away. Space is a harsh place, especially when you're traveling at a good fraction of the speed of light. There isn't much that we've ever built that lasts hundreds of years, and certainly nothing that's within 2 orders of magnitude of the complexity of an interstellar generation ship.

          5 votes
          1. [6]
            NeoTheFox
            Link Parent
            It is optimistic, but I would argue it's not insanely optimistic. A space ship doesn't have to be complicated, and the modern state of space travel would not apply. We make massive rockets with...

            It is optimistic, but I would argue it's not insanely optimistic. A space ship doesn't have to be complicated, and the modern state of space travel would not apply. We make massive rockets with huge boosters and shielding because the thing must escape the atmosphere, and then return into it. Of course it's the worst possible way to build a spaceship, because you only get a fraction of mass to the actual space. However, lucky for us we have not one but TWO planets capable of making things much easier for us. Both our moon and mars have low gravity. In case of moon a space elevator might be used to transport materials from earth, in case of mars you would need a colony there but once it's built it would be able to get most of the materials on its own. The spaceship would have to be built on orbit, or even in the lagrangian point, and it would be pretty simple - a huge container with a lot of shielding with a smaller more shielded section for people and important machinery. Then once accelerated (either by external push and gravitational maneuver, huge lazer or it's own boosters) it would not decelerate, ever. In deep space there isn't much stuff that would collide with it, and the shielding should provide sufficient protection against cosmic particles. Given that the space is so empty that encountering even smallest debree is unlikely, even at insane speeds the most challenging part of the expedition would be the durability of all the ship systems. Now that with cosmic tech is very much possible, triple safeguards and all, but if you have a virtually unlimited energy source I don't think that's going to be a problem, especially with all the data we'll get from colonizing mars and solving problems there. Even with everything made perfectly this would be a suicide mission, I'm fully aware, but I think that there would be no end to people willing to sacrifice themselves for the ability to make a colony in another solar system - even today Mars One collected thousands of applications for a suicidal mission to mars. The most soul-crushing part about this would be that not a single person who would make the journey possible would see the result, and even if the mission is successful only very distant generations of people would possibly get to know if it was, but that's the nature of the beast.

            1 vote
            1. [5]
              Ordinator
              Link Parent
              Your ideas are broadly plausible, but I think you're glossing over a lot of the engineering details that make them actually work, and that's where all of the really hard bits are! First off,...

              Your ideas are broadly plausible, but I think you're glossing over a lot of the engineering details that make them actually work, and that's where all of the really hard bits are!

              First off, forget about space elevators. The materials science just 100% isn't there. We'll have a space elevator right around the same time we have commercial fusion power generation (i.e. never unless we significantly change the amount we invest in R&D).

              Second, space isn't actually that empty at all. When you're moving an appreciable fraction of the speed of light over several light years, you are absolutely going to run into things, and even a single hydrogen atom is going to have enough kinetic energy to give you a really bad day if you're not careful.

              Third, the simple logistics of keeping a closed system operational over hundreds of years are a vastly under-studied area right now. The few experiments we've done on Earth have not been promising. Even the tiniest leak could mean running out of atmosphere over the time-scales we would need to think about.

              Also, as a more general note, you most certainly do need to decelerate if you want to land on another planet at some point. In fact, you almost certainly want constant acceleration on an interstellar ship. First, because it's the easiest way to simulate gravity. Second, because you want to slow down at your destination, which means you need to take your thrust source with you, and if you're doing that constant acceleration is really the simplest design choice.

              3 votes
              1. spctrvl
                Link Parent
                It's in my contract that whenever someone mentions a space elevator, I bring up how much better an orbital ring is. The TL;DR is that it's a dynamically supported structure in low earth orbit...

                First off, forget about space elevators. The materials science just 100% isn't there.

                It's in my contract that whenever someone mentions a space elevator, I bring up how much better an orbital ring is.

                The TL;DR is that it's a dynamically supported structure in low earth orbit that's buildable with modern materials, and is safer, faster, more capable, and more practical than a space elevator.

                3 votes
              2. [3]
                NeoTheFox
                Link Parent
                On space elevators I fully agree, and that's why I mentioned both the moon and mars. With a functional space elevator a construction of orbital superstructure such as a ship is more dangerous...

                On space elevators I fully agree, and that's why I mentioned both the moon and mars. With a functional space elevator a construction of orbital superstructure such as a ship is more dangerous because of how cluttered the space near earth is and also because of the potential catastrophe that could happen should the project fall back to earth, but it's essentially possible, even without a moon outpost or a mars colony. Whatever we do first would suffice, in my opinion. So we have options here, all within the realm of theoretical possibility.
                Next, the closer you are to the light speed the more dangerous the trip would be, this is absolutely understandable, but who said it should be at 99% of light speed? (exaggeration). If we are talking about the cryo scenario you can go at 50% or light speed or even slower, as long as it's going to increase the safety. And I am making an assumption here, that you could potentially freeze people for indefinite amount of time. I am not a biologist by any stretch, and I've made it clear that this technology is an assumption, but a likely one. At least much more likely one than traveling over the light speed, since it doesn't have to break any fundamental physics. And in the digital immortality scenario you need even less than that. I fully admit that even at 50% of light speed stray atoms and rays would be a problem, but I also think that during previous effort to colonize mars or make a lunar outpost these issues would be further researched and engineered - that's by the way, one of the reasons why I believe mars colony would be a very important step - mars inhabitants would produce an amazing amount of research and technology by solving all the tasks associated with colonization.
                As for the closed system - of course you would have to have extra supplies, but since we are in space mass is not an issue, so there might be a huge safety net for any incident. And if we are again talking about the cryo scenario the closed system at hand becomes increasingly tiny.
                Now for the landing - there are ways to stop a spaceship without any constant deceleration, gravitational maneuvers, solar sails, etc. But sure, constant acceleration/deceleration is also possible, for example by an ionic emitter.

                2 votes
                1. [2]
                  Ordinator
                  Link Parent
                  Woah. When were we talking about cryogenics? That's getting into pure sci-fi land. Any scenario based on our current technology is a generation ship, pure and simple. The exact speed doesn't...

                  If we are talking about the cryo

                  Woah. When were we talking about cryogenics? That's getting into pure sci-fi land. Any scenario based on our current technology is a generation ship, pure and simple. The exact speed doesn't really matter. 50% or even 10% of the speed of light isn't slow enough to pretend that space is empty.

                  As for the closed system - of course you would have to have extra supplies, but since we are in space mass is not an issue, so there might be a huge safety net for any incident. And if we are again talking about the cryo scenario the closed system at hand becomes increasingly tiny.

                  Mass is always an issue. More mass means it's more expensive to move your ship, which means more reaction mass, even with nearly infinite energy. The tyranny of the rocket equation does not end at the edge of the atmosphere.

                  Now for the landing - there are ways to stop a spaceship without any constant deceleration, gravitational maneuvers, solar sails, etc. But sure, constant acceleration/deceleration is also possible, for example by an ionic emitter.

                  I'm sorry, but no. I have to head out the door. I'll try to remember come back and expand on why none of those things is going to slow you down enough if you're traveling at the speeds necessary to make interstellar travel remotely plausible.

                  1 vote
                  1. NeoTheFox
                    Link Parent
                    If you'll come back this is going to be interesting! But re-read my first message, I mentioned generational ship, cryo and digital immortality as possibilities, and while being quite sci-fi-y it's...

                    If you'll come back this is going to be interesting!
                    But re-read my first message, I mentioned generational ship, cryo and digital immortality as possibilities, and while being quite sci-fi-y it's not yet discounted as something that fundamentally would not work.
                    As for the rocket equation - it holds true, no doubts about it, but we have to understand two things - the propellant is either only used for throttling and the initial acceleration should be reached from external force (because why not, it's our solar system, we could build whatever here to shoot this thing out), and also we may cheat it by not having the propellant present on the ship, that would be the case with any electromagnetic propulsion, as the required mass could be generated by the engine. Of course we need fuel to do that, but theoretically some of it could be trapped from the surroundings while going fast enough, hydrogen is the most common element after all, but that's getting to sci-fi at that point.
                    But I have to stress that the purpose of my initial post was to show that we have more than enough potential pathways to fly far far beyond our solar system and spread out, it's absolutely not just the solar system.

                    1 vote
        2. SourceContribute
          Link Parent
          I feel like, in the year 2019, whenever I read about space travel and AI and things like that, all I'm seeing are re-runs of earlier science fiction and that we may finally be back on the path to...

          I feel like, in the year 2019, whenever I read about space travel and AI and things like that, all I'm seeing are re-runs of earlier science fiction and that we may finally be back on the path to that.

          Perhaps it's time for a Star Fraction to form:

          “...maybe we can do better than this. And to ask yourself: where's the vulnerable point in this multiple-choice totalitarianism? It seems...seamless. What can an individual do against it?... I suggest that you doubt, disobey, desert. Particularly if you are called upon to fight against those who insist, against all the evidence, that we are one people.”

          2 votes
        3. [3]
          spctrvl
          Link Parent
          Do you mean (hot) nuclear fusion? Because cold fusion has many fundamental problems. The only known method of inducing cold fusion would require reducing the rate of muon decay to achieve break even.

          It all comes to energy in the end, and we do have a few ways of getting there, no fundamental problems exists for cold fusion, for example.

          Do you mean (hot) nuclear fusion? Because cold fusion has many fundamental problems. The only known method of inducing cold fusion would require reducing the rate of muon decay to achieve break even.

          1 vote
          1. [2]
            NeoTheFox
            Link Parent
            I think I used the wrong term here. I thought about the Stellarator concept.

            I think I used the wrong term here. I thought about the Stellarator concept.

            1 vote
            1. spctrvl
              Link Parent
              Yeah, that's just regular fusion, and it definitely seems to be on the roadmap. Cold fusion is an altogether different idea, wherein instead of fusing atoms at hundreds of millions of degrees, you...

              Yeah, that's just regular fusion, and it definitely seems to be on the roadmap. Cold fusion is an altogether different idea, wherein instead of fusing atoms at hundreds of millions of degrees, you do it at temperatures as low as room temperature. Surprisingly, it is possible to do if you catalyze the reaction with muons, which work like super-heavy electrons to make the atoms smaller and heavier, but muons decay or get ejected from the reaction quickly, and so don't catalyze enough fusion events to pay back the energy cost of creating them. It's definitely an interesting idea that would make reactor design and construction much easier, but at present there isn't a clear way forward like you have with the tokamak and the stellarator.

              3 votes
      2. Amarok
        Link Parent
        I'm not so worried about this. All of the research into dark matter/energy is pointing to negative mass particles being a reality, and that negative mass making up more than 90% of the universe....

        I'm not so worried about this. All of the research into dark matter/energy is pointing to negative mass particles being a reality, and that negative mass making up more than 90% of the universe. If negative mass is real, then so is warp drive, wormhole travel, and a rather dizzying array of other possibilities, including the manufacture of matter/energy from nothing and meaningful control over gravitational fields. We've still got a lot to learn about physics, far too much to 'rule out' any form of intergalactic civilization at this stage. We're closing in on some interesting revelations about superconductivity as well.

        Save the worrying for when we're out of new physics to discover. :P

        1 vote
    2. SourceContribute
      Link Parent
      It's hyper-growth and it's also symbolic of the rest of the economic system. Maybe this is why we have sci-fi movies and books where there is an alien force that consumes every planet and it's a...

      I don't know that this has anything to do with Silicon Valley. They're just the logical extension of our entire economic system that relies on constant growth to sustain itself.

      It's hyper-growth and it's also symbolic of the rest of the economic system.

      Even if we manage to move beyond Earth, with compounding growth, we're going to have eaten up the entire solar system within a few hundred years, and baring some fundamental physics breakthroughs that's probably the end of the line.

      Maybe this is why we have sci-fi movies and books where there is an alien force that consumes every planet and it's a recurring theme. Perhaps we are just afraid of looking ourselves in the mirror?

      3 votes