Let’s not send a few thousand people to Mars as a big experiment in survival.
The authors of the book in the article, Kelly and Zach Weinersmith, were also on an episode of Factually. Between this article and that episode, I’m pretty down on any cool scifi future in space.
I’m not handwaving them away. We were having a fun conversation about theoretical concepts and you jumped in with “what about madmen who wanna destroy the world”. I have no political power on the global stage so that question is so far outside my scope that it’s absurd.
You’re also handwaving away the fact that there’s nothing we can do. It doesn’t matter how settled space law gets. If somebody with the capability wants to do that, they will unless someone else forcibly stops them. Laws won’t matter at that point (see all the humanitarian crises going on right now despite being against some law and how most of the world isn’t actively stopping them)
And, yes, NASA tested asteroid redirection on an inconsequential asteroid. But that was a choice and now we know they have the capability. We’re not adding a threat, it’s already there.
Lastly, if you read my other comments in this thread and crossposted threads, you’ll see me reiterating that the point of this article is that there are a ton of unanswered questions about space colonization and I don’t think it’s going to happen in our lifetimes. There’s plenty of time for you to figure out how to write a law to stop physics/math or outlaw rocketry or whatever. So excuse me if I continue to imagine cool sci-fi futures.
I responded to a comment saying “but what about this” and pointed out that it doesn’t actually address any of the problems with space settlements.
The question is literally in the scope of this article because it’s one of the main topics the weinersmiths discuss! In a post about the book where they discuss that!
And space law does matter. The oceans, Antarctica, both are examples of very similar space law that’s been respected to date. This wacky pessimistic “space will be the wild west” is frankly absurd. It’s an easy zero thought answer that takes no effort to consider and takes no real world history into account, just vague “world bad mkay”
There’s a huge difference between dart and redirecting an asteroid to a specific near earth orbit. These are not comparable existential threats.
Yes! The article is about the exact unanswered questions like what I’ve brought up here. Your push back is just confusing and just seems overly defensive rather than engaging with the exact answered questions that are the topic of discussion.
And we may be settling space anywhere from ten to hundreds of years from now, but this isn’t some “haha what if” it’s genuinely a current topic of discussion due to the ever increasing feasibility.
It does address some of the problems. We already have a lot of the capability. Like I’ve said, moving an asteroid has already been demonstrated. Capping the dig sites makes it reasonable to maintain an atmosphere inside the hollow body of the asteroid and the body of the asteroid protects inhabitants from radiation. We can build soil using basic principles we’ve used for millennia here on Earth and raise crops so the hab could possibly be self sustaining. This addresses most of the scientific issues the article presents.
You keep ignoring a lot of what I’m saying so it feels like you’re not actually arguing with me and this is a personal bugaboo for you. I never said “space will be the wild west”. There are already laws in place that work and prevent a lot of bad things. What I was trying to get across is that laws don’t actually stop people from doing bad things. Putin invaded Ukraine, Israel is bombing civilians, etc, even though those are against international laws. The laws are a deterrent but can’t actually stop someone. And the international community has shown they will not forcibly stop countries from breaking these laws. What would stop people from doing something like this is the same as what currently stops countries from using nukes.
They redirected an asteroid into an orbit farther from Earth. That’s not a huge difference from bringing its orbit closer to Earth.
My push back is because we are just randos on the internet having a fun conversation about hypothetical far futures, not an organization with space launch capabilities, and you started yelling at us for being irresponsible with existential threats. No matter how this argument here end, nothing will change in the status of space law and the ability to ram asteroids into Earth. So we wanted to spend our time theorizing about the fun questions and there’s no international law requiring us to submit a thesis on how we would prevent a global apocalypse before we play armchair scientist/explorer.
There’s just so much wrong here, and so much absurdity.
And really, “were just randos so I won’t engage with the topic of the post and how dare you for ruining our fun because surely nobody should be remotely serious in their conversations about something that may be killing people within our lifetime” just ain’t the argument you think it is.
Again, you keep avoiding replying directly to my points. Can you explain to me what’s wrong or absurd about my post?
I’ve been engaging with you. I’m trying to understand what exactly you want to happen. You keep mentioning how dangerous asteroids are and then casting my responses as “lol ez” or “world bad mkay” I just don’t understand what you want here. Are we not allowed to talk about asteroid habs at all because there is a hypothetical danger to them? I don’t know how to prevent people from crashing an asteroid into the Earth. But I still think the idea of asteroid habs is interesting and, because I’m not actually moving an asteroid myself, I don’t think that’s dangerous.