... the limited capcity of the Loop system is a central feature. This is not a mass public transportation system. This is a proposal for a series of gilded corridors which enable elites such as Musk to get to their destinations quicker and without having to mix with the rest of us. The colonies on Mars, too, are not a futuristic vision of new life for the many, but a means for the few to escape the effects of the climate crisis. ... [The Cybertruck] is a vehicle for the elites to traverse a world which is both ecologically devastated and in which there is likely to be increasing hostility towards them.
Sorry, this one statement is just absurd. Mars is incredibly hostile to life. It might be a viable path for the human species to avoid extinction, but it's never going to be a pleasure palace. The...
The colonies on Mars, too, are not a futuristic vision of new life for the many, but a means for the few to escape the effects of the climate crisis
Sorry, this one statement is just absurd. Mars is incredibly hostile to life. It might be a viable path for the human species to avoid extinction, but it's never going to be a pleasure palace. The "elite" would have an easier time underground or under sea than they would on Mars.
It's also worth considering, that Tesla started off selling electric cars to the "elite" with the roadster.
We'll probably be gardening outdoors on Venus before we're more than a couple domes on Mars. It's rather easy to cool Venus down with a solar shade, and the solar energy there is phenomenal. What...
We'll probably be gardening outdoors on Venus before we're more than a couple domes on Mars. It's rather easy to cool Venus down with a solar shade, and the solar energy there is phenomenal. What we need to do is box up all of Venus' carbon when it starts snowing down on the surface and ship that stuff over to Mars. One has far too much atmosphere, the other far too little. I can't even imagine how we could move it all.
It would still take many decades after putting the shade in place (which itself is a non-trivial project requiring significant preexisting space infrastructure) for the Venusian atmosphere to...
It would still take many decades after putting the shade in place (which itself is a non-trivial project requiring significant preexisting space infrastructure) for the Venusian atmosphere to freeze out. And then you still have to put in place some active system for redirecting sunlight to create a shorter day. I would expect a supramundane shell world to be constructed there long before I'd ever expect the place to be traditionally terraformed, and expect either event to be centuries after there are millions of people on Mars and in orbital habitats throughout the solar system.
I firmly believe that, along the way towards learning how to terraform planets, and long before we make any real progress on it, we will develop our space-based construction capabilities enough to...
I firmly believe that, along the way towards learning how to terraform planets, and long before we make any real progress on it, we will develop our space-based construction capabilities enough to make giant self-contained colonies — O'Neill Cylinders — and then we'll start knocking them out like cars, and quit bothering with planets.
I honestly suspect Musk knows this, too, and just maintains the whole "Occupy Mars" effort, because it's picked up so much momentum.
Oh agreed, 100%: terraforming will never be anything but a sort of long term quixotic vanity project. Although more efficient techniques like worldhousing on Mars or supramundane construction on...
Oh agreed, 100%: terraforming will never be anything but a sort of long term quixotic vanity project. Although more efficient techniques like worldhousing on Mars or supramundane construction on Venus might bring it into the realm of vaguely plausible multigenerational vanity project.
I disagree with his main thesis, that Musk is at fault because "his" products/ambitions are only available for the rich. I'm reminded of the quote "The future is already here – it's just not...
I disagree with his main thesis, that Musk is at fault because "his" products/ambitions are only available for the rich. I'm reminded of the quote "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." I think anyone wanting to make radical, futuristic, change will have to cater to the rich people first. The future comes to people with money simply because of economies of scale. The important thing is someone has to be the person to actually provide the product to the rich before it can be provided to the general population. Almost any 'futuristic' product will go through the stage of "only being available to people with money", so I don't think it really fair to criticize Musk for this (although I'm sure there are other areas in which he does deserve criticism).
The Gibson quote is pretty solid, but the thing that I think it belies is that one may assume, over time, what is futuristic now will become evenly distributed. This is only true if the rate of...
"The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed."
The Gibson quote is pretty solid, but the thing that I think it belies is that one may assume, over time, what is futuristic now will become evenly distributed. This is only true if the rate of technology development and the rate of commodification of such technology are at a ratio between 0 and 1. If the rate of tech dev outpaces the rate at which it finds its way into everyday consumers’ hands, and the right tech comes along that continues to accelerate and increase that ratio, then it may be that some tech never makes its way to "even distribution". Biological immortality, arcologies, generation ships etc. are all technologies that could essentially totally separate certain economic strata from the rest of humanity—if you can’t afford a ticket on the ship/a spot in the arc/the nanobot injection then you’re stuck dying like the other plebs.
I think history has shown us that technology does, to some extent, become more evenly distributed over time. I think that the separation you're talking about could definitely happen, but I don't...
I think history has shown us that technology does, to some extent, become more evenly distributed over time. I think that the separation you're talking about could definitely happen, but I don't think it will be as extreme as dystopian fiction might predict. I guess my view is, the faster we can get it to the rich people, the faster the rest of us can see what we're missing out on (and maybe do something about it).
Sorry, this one statement is just absurd. Mars is incredibly hostile to life. It might be a viable path for the human species to avoid extinction, but it's never going to be a pleasure palace. The "elite" would have an easier time underground or under sea than they would on Mars.
It's also worth considering, that Tesla started off selling electric cars to the "elite" with the roadster.
We'll probably be gardening outdoors on Venus before we're more than a couple domes on Mars. It's rather easy to cool Venus down with a solar shade, and the solar energy there is phenomenal. What we need to do is box up all of Venus' carbon when it starts snowing down on the surface and ship that stuff over to Mars. One has far too much atmosphere, the other far too little. I can't even imagine how we could move it all.
It would still take many decades after putting the shade in place (which itself is a non-trivial project requiring significant preexisting space infrastructure) for the Venusian atmosphere to freeze out. And then you still have to put in place some active system for redirecting sunlight to create a shorter day. I would expect a supramundane shell world to be constructed there long before I'd ever expect the place to be traditionally terraformed, and expect either event to be centuries after there are millions of people on Mars and in orbital habitats throughout the solar system.
I firmly believe that, along the way towards learning how to terraform planets, and long before we make any real progress on it, we will develop our space-based construction capabilities enough to make giant self-contained colonies — O'Neill Cylinders — and then we'll start knocking them out like cars, and quit bothering with planets.
I honestly suspect Musk knows this, too, and just maintains the whole "Occupy Mars" effort, because it's picked up so much momentum.
Oh agreed, 100%: terraforming will never be anything but a sort of long term quixotic vanity project. Although more efficient techniques like worldhousing on Mars or supramundane construction on Venus might bring it into the realm of vaguely plausible multigenerational vanity project.
I disagree with his main thesis, that Musk is at fault because "his" products/ambitions are only available for the rich. I'm reminded of the quote "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." I think anyone wanting to make radical, futuristic, change will have to cater to the rich people first. The future comes to people with money simply because of economies of scale. The important thing is someone has to be the person to actually provide the product to the rich before it can be provided to the general population. Almost any 'futuristic' product will go through the stage of "only being available to people with money", so I don't think it really fair to criticize Musk for this (although I'm sure there are other areas in which he does deserve criticism).
The Gibson quote is pretty solid, but the thing that I think it belies is that one may assume, over time, what is futuristic now will become evenly distributed. This is only true if the rate of technology development and the rate of commodification of such technology are at a ratio between 0 and 1. If the rate of tech dev outpaces the rate at which it finds its way into everyday consumers’ hands, and the right tech comes along that continues to accelerate and increase that ratio, then it may be that some tech never makes its way to "even distribution". Biological immortality, arcologies, generation ships etc. are all technologies that could essentially totally separate certain economic strata from the rest of humanity—if you can’t afford a ticket on the ship/a spot in the arc/the nanobot injection then you’re stuck dying like the other plebs.
I think history has shown us that technology does, to some extent, become more evenly distributed over time. I think that the separation you're talking about could definitely happen, but I don't think it will be as extreme as dystopian fiction might predict. I guess my view is, the faster we can get it to the rich people, the faster the rest of us can see what we're missing out on (and maybe do something about it).
What is being rich other than having more access to resources?
What is being rich other than having more access to resources?